PART 1:
NON-CONSCIOUS PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL CONSENSUS REALITIES
(22Jan97)
There's a good chance I'll flub the message and the "text" of this
particular essay -- the MESSAGE being whatever you can make out of
the words; the TEXT being what is not put into words, but is being
said anyway, the sort of read-between-the-lines thing.
But if I flub, there are two good reasons: We all are "victims" of
the consensus realities among which we live; and it is necessary to
utilize consensus reality concepts and nomenclature of the consensus
reality in order to talk about it. So, plop! One ends up back in it.
However, consensus-reality formation, and thinking with or via its
contexts, patterns, concepts, ideas and nomenclature, constitute the
single biggest deterrent with regard to activating any of the
superpowers.
Everyone of course has some idea about what a consensus reality is,
if only from their mindset perspectives. But the idea is usually
vague, and even so most feel they are free of consensus reality
influences.
Allowing for differences at the individual level, the general
consensus about consensus realities seems to be that they involve
the majority who have trouble thinking for themselves and thus ape
or imitate each other. But we, ourselves, are not like that, and
even if influenced by consensus realities, we can escape from them
any time we want.
After all, we are individuals with freedom of thought and choice,
right?
Well, not if the language you are using is the same as the one the
consensus reality is using. For when you speak or read the language
and words the consensus reality is using, you are actually
participating in the consensus reality format.
Before getting into what follows, I must alert you that it will
appear I'm being very negative and condemnatory about consensus
realities, and am probably targeting specific ones.
Well, nothing of the kind is the case.
Although I may be in error so far as I understand them, the
manufacturing of consensus realities is an ongoing artifact of our
species which needs to fabricate thinking patterns that make
community possible.
So, not only are consensus realities NECESSARY, they are here to
stay as long as specimens of our species are group-minded and
interdependent.
Aside from the above disclaimer, I love to wallow within this or
that consensus reality, simply to exercise my curiosity.
It will be obvious to just about everyone that consensus realities
are always SOCIAL consensus realities, and that they can contain
factors that boost any number of activities. But it is well known
that they can prevent or deter any number of activities also. These
deterring factors can be overt. Or they can be subtle and merely
implicit. And they can have nearly invisible spin-offs. The
deterring factors can also emanate from misconceptions not realized
as such.
Social consensus realities are perpetuated by cloning their basic
concepts into others via association with them, or by the tried and
trusted method of educating, conditioning, convincing, or
propagandizing.
But the single, surest method of the cloning is one few could
imagine -- language itself. For when one learns language, one learns
its nomenclature PLUS the meanings assigned to it BY the consensus
reality that determines what the meanings are.
With this prelude having been stated, here we go into a topic that
is flubbable no matter who addresses it.
Major Characteristics of A Consensus
Reality
In sociology, a SOCIAL
CONSENSUS REALITY refers to what the greatest number of people
(i.e., the consensus majority) think or believe is real.
A general consensus reality should be distinguished from mindsets,
in that a given consensus reality can contain any number of
mindsets, right down to and inclusive of the individual level.
Mindsets are more likely to be found among social sub-groups formed
of individuals whose "inclinations" are compatible with those of the
others. Mindset groups can indeed form their own particular
consensus realities, but these are "local" to the group and seldom
achieve a general universality.
Although proper science considers it to be a mindset of fools, the
"field" of parapsychology possesses a general consensus reality, but
also a number of contrasting mindset groups within it.
This social arrangement is true almost everywhere and regarding all
activities.
The usual result of a consensus reality formation is that what the
consensus thinks is real takes on some kind of stability, often
becoming immovable, enduring, habitual, unquestioned and cement-like
-- and thus exhibiting various degrees of resistance to any kind of
alteration or change.
Even if things are not all that stable, what is more or less an
illusion of it serves the purpose of making community possible and
maintainable. The other option is what people refer to as "chaos."
Consensus reality formation seems to be a trait of our species as a
whole, for consensus realities are everywhere formed -- and usually
perpetuated to their last gasp, especially if they have become
"prevailing" ones. The length of their prevail reinforces the idea
of their correctness and efficiency.
Much can be said for and against consensus reality formations,
usually without getting anywhere in the longer run of things.
On the favorable side, it is obvious that consensus reality
formation is THE basis for social coherency.
But somewhat on the questionable side is that social consensus
realities are utilized to beat up on the social consensus realities
of others' groups -- often with the result that members of two
consensus reality groupings, neither of which have ANY hold on real
realities, can mess around with each other in rather deplorable
ways.
Consensus reality formations are so complicated that I personally
would like to lift the panorama of the superpowers up and out of
them altogether.
But this cannot be done, for reasons that ahead will be torn apart
and beat up on.
The Relationship of Consensus Realities
to the Superpower Faculties
There are THREE major reasons
why the superpower faculties cannot be lifted up and out of
consensus realities:
Such realities are everywhere, and the thinking-apparatus of each
and everyone of us is linked into a variety of them. The link may be
because of educational programming, but if not that then at least
via language and nomenclature.
Many of the concepts that characterize a given consensus reality act
as deterrents, sometimes permanent, to the activation of the
faculties, and without much conscious awareness on our parts that
they do so.
The THIRD reason mentioned here, but which will be discussed ahead
in the second essay is "mental information processing viruses." This
third reason is the most powerful -- and unavoidable -- of all. And
it is THIS reason which, in my opinion, necessitates this somewhat
over-long and possibly tiring essay.
Thus, anyone who might chance to want to activate their superpower
faculties is obliged, without question, without release, to turn
rather exacting attention to consensus realities (yes, you can take
a deep sigh if you want).
These might at first seem very far removed from anything to do with
the superpower faculties. But the two are right up next and against
each other, no farther apart than two sides of a coin.
Now, any examination of consensus realities tends to be quite
boring, complicated and thorny. So, to get into this I'll do my best
to hack a path with the hope it won't immediately get filled in
behind me merely because of boredom.
Two Typical Questions
Since the onset of my
participation in research in 1971, I've found that people most
frequently ask one or both of two questions. And since the
inauguration of this website database, and the enormous amount of
gratifying email resulting, the same two questions are still those
most frequently asked:
-
What can one read to understand more
about the superpowers? and
-
Are there any (inexpensive)
documents, books or courses one can utilize as sources for
self-development procedures?
Not long after this website got
underway, I decided to address these questions in an essay.
But I soon got bogged down -- because there simply was too much to
put into it by way of preparing the reader for comprehension.
For example, the consensus realities regarding psychic stuff are
relatively antiquated. Some, but not all, of the most important
concepts applied are either misconceived or are ambiguous. The
consensus reality does not notice the misconceptions. Ambiguity
might serve for easy and superficial think, but is not constructive
otherwise.
But most importantly, significant discoveries in other branches of
science have been made during the last thirty years, discoveries
that are entirely relevant not only within those other branches, but
to the overall situation psychic problems represent.
Yet these new discoveries have not been transferred into Psi
research, while the other branches of science haven't made the
connection either. If these new discoveries are integrated into Psi
research, then the entire conceptual basis of that research will
have to undergo radical shifts. But this will also mean that
consensus reality formation regarding Psi will have to undergo
radical reconceptualizing.
For example, the signal-to-noise-ratio concept has been in existence
for a number of decades, but never applied with gusto to Psi
"perceptions." And indeed, those "perceptions" cannot be fully
understood without that concept.
Thus, in order to prepare the reader for THIS series of essays, I
elected to introduce into this database essays focusing on important
information not contained in the consensus realities regarding Psi
stuff. And so you will find an essay regarding the signal-to-noise
ratio already entered into this database, along with a number of
other essays that expose and discuss important factors that are
alien within the Psi consensus reality.
And here we encounter a tremendous, even over-sized situation which
is intensely problematical in many ways.
The central fact regarding this situation is that if one wishes to
discuss or communicate about something, anything, one has to do so
via the use of concepts and words that stand a chance of being
comprehended. In other words, one has to communicate via familiar
contexts, not alien ones.
The concepts and words best suited for speaking and writing within
the familiarity are those that enjoy a large consensus reality about
the topic of interest, and which is shared and sharable among the
many who utilize the same language.
In this sense, then, concepts and words constitute the "currency"
that is utilized in order to offer and obtain information. But the
"currency" has to be standardized, recognizable and agreed upon.
As it happens, though, the larger this consensus reality, the
smaller and smaller, and more simplified, are the number of concepts
and terms that can be used. And as the number of sharable and
familiar concepts DECREASE, many more complex concepts needed tend
to become not just unintelligible, but absent altogether.
Another way of putting this, and as many editors and publishers have
told me, is that one cannot talk above the heads of the mass market
audience and hope to achieve a successful mass market book.
The above paragraph constitutes a consideration everyone seems to
think is logical. And logical it is -- IF it regards only producing
a mass-market book.
But in considering this, we can begin to see that one of the
definitions of a general consensus reality has to do with the
"mass-market" concept, in that a consensus reality becomes one by
the increase of simplicity regarding fewer and fewer concepts, and
not by the increase of number of them. The increase of the number of
concepts introduces prospects that might lead to social instability,
and also introduces the likelihood that people won't understand them
anyway.
You see, in order NOT to talk above the heads of the mass market or
the mass consensus means that one has to utilize only those concepts
and nomenclature most familiar to them.
In this sense, then, familiar and recognizable concepts PLUS
nomenclature appropriate to them constitute the "currency" of the
information exchange or transfer at the mass market, mass consensus
level. But this also constitutes the concept-nomenclature basis of
any language and which incorporates everyone who speaks it. And so
the concept-nomenclature is the real basis for the "currency."
I have more faith in the understanding minds at the mass market
level than publishers do. But none-the-less this rather naive
publishing overview echoes something which IS true -- in that social
consensus realities ARE tightly locked into and contained within
familiar and recognizable concepts and nomenclature, and the more
simplified or over-simplified they are the more widely recognized
they become.
Stereotypes Within Consensus Realities
There is another difficulty that is always encountered in writing
for consumption within the larger consensus reality. The larger the
consensus reality, the more likely it is that what is traded as
information packages among it will consist of over-simplified
information packages, more commonly known as stereotypes.
There is a distinct deficit in this regard. Over-simplified
information might not be information at all, but merely consist of
fashionable, stereotype chit-chat which makes it easy to engage in
conversation.
This leaves people thinking they have "communicated." But
over-simplified ideas and concepts are virtually value-less as
information except within the over-simplified contexts in which they
are used.
Individuals comprising a given consensus reality may have radical
differences in the quantity of vocabulary at their disposal. But
consensus realities are not formatted on the amount of vocabulary
per se, but on simplified and simplifying concepts via which the
majority can comprehend easier and faster. The less one has to
think, consider, and extrapolate, the better.
This, however, is not actually the fault of the individual. It is
demanded by the social consensus reality, and the demand leads to
adaptation of or the cloning of whatever is demanded.
If you feel bogged down by now, don't worry too much.
If you dig very deeply beneath their surfaces, consensus realities
all tend to be swampy, and so it isn't your intelligence which has
become boggy, it's the topic of this essay.
Questions Can Be Answered Only If the
Answers Pre-Fit
Into the Consensus Realities Within Which the Questions
Have Been Formulated
In considering how the two most frequently-asked questions can be
answered, I got the idea of asking those who asked them how THEY
would answer them. Why, of course, they would direct the questioner
to sources that would provide the information they are asking for.
In other words, the consensus reality within which the questions
have been formulated seems to hold that one can turn to sources
outside of themselves in order to obtain the information they are
looking for.
In the case of the superpower faculties, then, what is being sought,
then, is outside information that will help "turn on" the faculties
the questioners are interested in turning on.
This seems perfectly logical, doesn't it? Especially since all
learning theories of the twentieth century have been mounted with
exactly this in mind. And especially since there ARE a great number
of things that can be learned via this approach.
And so there is a "prevailing" consensus reality that this is the
way to go, and the predictive expectation is that with enough
outside information acquired that information will rev up the
abilities they are after.
However, there is a category of human activity that does not
respond, at least on a one-to-one basis, to this "outside
stimulation." For example, one can sometimes read all one wants
about the creative processes -- and can even accumulate a vast
expertise regarding what has been read and studied.
But one's creative faculties can quite easily remain in a stupor or
somnolent -- and so the activation of creative faculties is not
really answerable within the learning-from-outside-sources
stereotype.
And here is the very great contrast between "awakening" and merely
reading-learning about a faculty. Indeed, creativity often "awakens"
in those who never crack a book about how the creative processes
function and don't even care about them.
The direct implication here is that certain faculties are
self-starting in some kind of self-internal way while others respond
to stimulation from outside sources. In this sense, the methods of
the latter are not all that effective regarding the former.
Thus, we can rationally expect "enhancement" with regard to those
faculties that do respond to stimulus from the outside, such as
learning how to type. On the other hand, the self-starting faculties
may be resistant to outside stimuli, no matter how much one slogs
away with them.
Now, whether or not anyone has experienced any enhancement of their
superpowers via or because of some kind of external stimulus is for
them to say. My position in this regard is: if it works, go for it.
But the vast bulk of data in the collective archives of psychical
and parapsychological research firmly establishes that hardly anyone
developed significant abilities exclusively from outside stimuli.
Indeed, most if not all natural psychics whose faculties endure over
time will say that their faculties have occurred not because of any
outside stimuli, but that they just "awakened" all by themselves.
In any event, and since the above is more or less the case, and also
the confusion, I got to wondering why the dependency on outside
stimuli has become so paramount, and why the concept of
self-starting faculties is not active in our present consensus
realities.
Now, this particular question fell within the boundaries and goals
of the project I have referred to in the Introduction. And so the
question was researched with some gusto.
With regard to the absence of self-starting faculties, an
astonishing, but probable reason was found -- and this in turn shed
light on the problem of learning only from outside sources. I'll be
as brief as possible, but the details involved require an
unavoidable length.
I'll begin simply by saying that the nineteenth century saw the
greatest "outbreak" of "paranormal" phenomena ever directly recorded
and documented by history.
Indeed, it was because of this outbreak, astonishing in all ways,
that the first psychical research societies finally became organized
to investigate "psychic phenomena." For anyone who wants to read up
on this, and the history of the superpower phenomena in general, I
recommend
Natural And Supernatural: A History of the Paranormal by
Brian Inglis (1977).
I'll next say that the outbreak dwindled into almost nothing after
about 1920 -- even though the amount of information about "psychic"
powers and abilities INCREASED many times over, and did so in
organized ways.
To put this into perspective, we can say that the gross increased
many times over, but the net in the twentieth century decreased
beneath what it was in the nineteenth, the century when LESS
information was available, and what there was of it was
disorganized.
If you were an accountant, you would get alarmed and leave no stone
unturned as to the reasons why.
I'll next state that my perhaps somewhat wobbly understanding of
consensus realities led to the consideration that the consensus
realities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries might have
something to do with all of this -- for consensus realities,
although desirable in themselves, also contain deterrents with
regard to which and what phenomena can emerge.
My general overview of the superpowers is that they are
self-starting. So I looked into the nineteenth century for the
existence of consensus realities that permitted and expected
self-starting activity of any kind.
And then I looked into the consensus realities of the twentieth
century for consensus realities that did not reflect the self-start
concepts, and which advocated the outside stimulus kind of thing.
And you can believe it or not. The shift from self-start concepts to
learn only from outside stimuli was found to involve only ONE WORD,
but from which countless conceptual spin-offs arose.
ONE F-----G word, but one whose general consensus reality meaning in
the nineteenth century shifted to the exact opposite in the
twentieth.
And THAT word was,
Dynamic
There is a great deal to be known about electricity, and all of
which learning is compartmentalized and identified by a large
assortment of terminology beginning with the prefix "electro."
But the largest consensus reality responds not to fifty-five terms
beginning with "electro," but only to one which means "power,"
"energy," or "juice" to light up bulbs, or to activate something.
At the most over-simplified consensus reality, therefore,
electricity, energy and "juice," are thought of as equivalents. But
the source of electricity is a dynamo somewhere, and so energy-juice
is obtained from an outside source.
This has led to the somewhat hidden consensus reality concept that
it takes an outside source of energy to "energize" something, to
turn it on, power it, juice it up, or to activate it.
And so in a simple, but social-consensus powerful way, people are
always looking outside themselves for something to "turn them on,"
and the context and expectation revealed in this phrase is
unmistakable.
If social consensus realities are based in recognizable concepts and
nomenclature, then the going gets rough when there is an ABSENCE of
needed concepts which exist outside of the parameters or boundaries
of the consensus realities.
After all, there are many horrendous gaps in knowledge and which
NEED new and/or different conceptualizations, even new nomenclature
perhaps -- and which absent knowledge cannot really be comprehended
by relying on existing concepts.
Absent knowledge might consist of knowledge that has not yet been
discovered, or consist of knowledge that has not been simplified to
enter into the consensus reality.
But another form of absent knowledge occurs when a nomenclature bit
meant one thing in the past, but the meaning of which has somehow
been converted into its exact opposite. In this case, the former
meaning has become "absent."
For example, based on the all-available evidence, all life forms are
self-starting, self-turning-on, and in their raw state don't really
need outside energy to turn them on. Upkeep may demand energy from
outside sources, but the essential life "thrust," so to speak is, by
comparison, self-starting.
Knowledge of how life forms START UP is completely absent in our
knowledge pools. Food or nutrients are converted to growth and
maintenance "energy," but the system that converts them belongs
within the self-starting thing.
However, if the consensus reality into which one becomes immersed
holds and, more importantly, SHARES the "reality" that one can do
nothing without an outside energy stimulus, then that concept will
be non-consciously cloned far and wide -- and the concept of
self-starting will become devitalized and non-recognizable, even if
one hears the words.
The vitalized and shared concept of self-start-up belongs to what
might be called the Age of Dynamism which began roughly during the
High Renaissance and dwindled into relative non-existence during the
1920s.
During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Dynamism was
not yet associated with electricity or electrical power, but was a
concept that belonged to VITALISM -- a concept-philosophy which held
that all animate organisms are vitalized by a "life principle"
distinct from psycho-chemical forces.
The psycho-chemical forces were energy-expending forces, and so THEY
needed outside sources of "fuel" that could be converted into it.
But to the vitalists, the life principle was different in that it
was interpreted as being self-animating, therefore self-powerful and
self-starting as well.
The "animating" principle had to do with MOTION. Whatever had motion
because of some self-contained interior set of factors was
considered to have self-motion, and therefore was animate, an
animate organism, a living organism. Any growth and development
process of a living organism also had motion, and so these processes
were seen as animating motion, too.
Hence, the vitalists expected to find that the growth and
development processes of the life principle would have structure and
patterns of internal organization of their own.
These structure-patterns would be different from the
structure-patterns of the psycho-chemical forces. But it was
expected that these self-vital patterns could be mapped much in the
same way that the structure and patterns of the psycho-chemical
forces were being mapped in the material sciences.
The term assigned to this life principle, self-vitalizing,
self-motion kind of thing was DYNAMIC, most probably intended as an
adverb or adjective.
The term DYNAMIC seems to have been introduced into German and
English from the French DYNAMIQUE at about 1692, especially in the
writings of Leibnitz.
The early conceptualizing meaning associated to it had to do with
force-producing-motion in some kind of self-making sense, as
contrasted to STATIC things that did not self-produce motion, but
were inert or non-self-moving.
But the term DYNAMIC was derived from a Greek term, DYNA, and which
referred to TO BE ABLE in a sense that was opposite to the Greek
STATIKOS which meant NOT ABLE to be in SELF-MOTION.
Hence the English connotations of STATIC are motionlessness,
stopped, non-changing, frozen up, or cement-like. Even today, TO BE
ABLE is implicitly associated with motion, since what is motionless
is not able.
To link DYNAMIC-STATIC to the superpower faculties, IF they belong
in the self-start-up category, then they are dynamic. If they are
not started up, then they are static, but for reasons that have
prevented or deterred their starting up.
There is much justification for thinking about them this way, for
when they occur spontaneously, they do so of their own accord. When
we try to deal with them according to our intellectualizing will to
do so, they stubbornly refuse to strut their stuff.
The only conclusions is that our intellectualizing about them is not
consistent with their actual structure and functioning -- in which
case the faculties just yawn and go back to sleep.
Additionally, when our intellectualizing faculties are drowsy,
asleep or in some "altered state," we experience traces of the
superpower faculties. Our intellectualizing will is principally
formatted by consensus realities. Are you getting the bigger picture
here? And an idea of why an examination of consensus realities,
although boring in the extreme, is meaningful?
I've not been able to identify just when the term DYNAMISM came into
full usage, probably somewhere between 1725 and 1800. In its
original sense then, it referred to the philosophic-theory that
sought to explain the phenomena of the universe by some immanent
force or energy.
IMMANENT means "inherent." INHERENT refers to self-containing,
self-perpetuating, self-changing, self-processing, self-moving,
self-motivating -- all in some kind of pre-existing way, and all
without the need of any outside forces or energies.
In the sense of all the above, then, the vitalistic life principle
was dynamic-active, defined as "self-full of power, or self-power"
(sorry for the redundancy here.) And as such, it was marked by
self-continuous, self-productive activity -- and that therefore all
life forms were themselves internally dynamic-active in
self-start-up kinds of ways.
The whole of this seems to have been broadly formulated into a
consensus reality that "prevailed" during the nineteenth and early
part of the twentieth centuries. THIS consensus reality seems to
have produced innumerable conceptual spin-offs that justified
individual self-starting activity of all kinds, since that activity
was seen as inherently present within the remarkable human species
-- and the universe as well.
For example, the maxims "rely on oneself" and "improve one's own
mind by virtue of one's own dynamic-inherent factors to do so"
belong to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We retain the
words today, but have lost their nineteenth century substance.
These maxims are the famous "lift oneself by one's own boot straps"
ideas. And those ideas and were very luminous during the nineteenth
century, whose societies were just freshly released from the
concepts of feudalism -- in which everyone was born into the status
in which they were to live their life thenceforth without any hope
of what we today call "upward mobility."
The boot-strap maxims were also entirely compatible with the
fundamental concepts of capitalism -- the freedom of anyone to
compete and make money who had the self-starting aptitudes to do so
-- and to do so WITHOUT looking for outside guidance.
Indeed, although I'll paraphrase it for convenience here, many noted
early capitalists have been noted to say something like: "Screw
outside guidance, which, if followed, will doom one to poverty."
In other words, the general consensus realities of the nineteenth
century were entirely saturated with self-dynamic concepts
accompanied by an enormous variety of conceptual spin-offs. And
historians have remarked on the sheer volume of discovery,
creativity and inventions that were TYPICAL of that century.
The Destruction of the Consensus
Reality Concept of Self-Dynamism
The concept of self-dynamism has not really been distorted at the
individual level, of course, and many individuals today are
self-made because of it.
But it has become considerably weakened in terms of general
consensus realities -- especially during and after the 1920s when
the concepts of VITALISM were wrecked and debunked as having no
"scientific" or "philosophic" value.
One of the results of this wrecking was that the terms DYNAMIC and
DYNAMISM became unfashionable and politically incorrect by the
1950s.
How this came about is a rather amusing sequence. But it's worth
noting before going on that IF we can become fashion "victims," then
we clearly can become victimized by general consensus realities.
The inverse of the concept of pre-existing, self-immanent,
self-mobilizing dynamism would be the idea that one has to go
outside oneself not only for energy, but for learning, guidance, and
models regarding how to do something or anything.
In this sense, then, we would have to utilize outside sources with
regard to shaping our own intellects -- this a factor which sucks
one INTO consensus realities and often into a near complete cloning
of them.
Shortly after 1831, a mechanism was invented that could convert
mechanical energy into electricity. It was known as the GENERATOR,
but was dubbed the DYNAMO.
However, a generator is not a self-dynamo strictly speaking, since
IT needs an outside source of energy or motion in order to make its
parts move and thus produce electricity. In this regard, a true
dynamo would be the fabled perpetual motion machine which itself did
not need outside power or fuel, but which none-the-less would
produce electricity, etc.
One of the more amusing, but now forgotten, facets of the nineteenth
century was that the terms GENERATE or GENERATION were a bit
overloaded with consensus reality concepts having to do with
procreation and SEX, SEX, SEX and the various formats of it -- this
being one of the few areas of those nineteenth century consensus
realities that did not permit much in the way of self-starting-up
and self-realizing.
Serious public relations problems thus arose regarding the electric
generator -- and it appears that these were quickly remedied by
linking the machine to the concepts of dynamic and dynamism which
the then-consensus-reality understood as self-productive of energy.
After a series of manufacturing failures and stock frauds, the
Dynamo Corporation was formed and which dubbed generators as
dynamos, a concept that detached from the sex connotations, fitted
neatly with consensus realities regarding energy, and which aided in
sales of the contraptions.
The inappropriate but hyped use of the "new" term caught on, as
might be expected, and it was generally used until about the late
1950s when the concepts and contexts of dynamism became
unfashionable. But by then it was permissible to refer to dynamos as
electrical generators -- although I believe the enormous generators
at Niagara Falls and at Hoover Dam are still called dynamos --
dynamos that mean energy from outside sources.
The shift of the meaning of DYNAMIC from self-internal starting-up
to the need for external energy to start-up is easy to understand.
You see, it releases the individual from the absolute necessity to
self-start-up by increasing the concept and value of getting
started-up via learning from outside sources.
And this results in a general consensus tendency to become dependent
on outside sources that might effect the start-up for them. And to
the degree THIS concept comes to prevail in general consensus
realities is the degree the self-start-up concepts decline almost to
the point of banishment.
Finally, there is that particularly difficult but widespread
phenomenon present among our species already outlined: the intake of
information by reducing it to fit with one's existing realities,
group consensus levels, cultural cohesion processes -- and, last but
by far not the least, to fit with one's ALREADY INSTALLED belief
systems. (A very good example of this will be found ahead in the
essay on PERCEPTION.)
For example, those that already believe that only outside stimuli
can result in, well, stimulation of energy or knowledge will expect
questions about how to get knowledge/understanding to fit that
consensus reality.
The shift may be very subtle regarding the meaning of dynamism as
self-start-up, self-motivating, to a meaning that refers to
something obtainable from an outside source.
And I certainly am not insisting on anything in this regard. This
essay, as are all those in this database, is offered for what it is
worth to each individual who chances to come across it.
I'll only note in passing that during the nineteenth century
"self-help" referred to one's bootstraps. Today it means "go buy a
self-help manual," or consult some other external source.
What Governs Output and Input of
Information
So, among consensus realities
there are many overt, covert, subtle and non-conscious factors which
somehow govern the output, transmission and intake of information at
various levels. One encounters these limiting and limited factors
everywhere and in any kind of mix or combination.
The most direct, but usually non-conscious, link is the language a
society and all of its members are required to utilize, no matter
their status or educational backgrounds.
Even if someone has a new idea, to communicate it verbally or in
writing requires use of the nomenclature shared and utilized at the
consensus reality level. As we shall see in an essay ahead, this
factor is a very important regarding theory and information transfer
processes.
In this sense, then, nomenclature is the first governing factor
regarding information transfer, and the concepts behind the
nomenclature are the second factor -- whether these concepts be
exact, explicit, assumed, imagined, taken for granted, or whatever.
And one usually finds these governing factors running on automatic
in various social echelons -- with very few ever realizing that
their innate and wonderful thinking processes are being reduced and
victimized by them.
Even way before I began acting as a research subject, I had gotten
some idea of the limitations resulting from the major concepts
central to psychical research and parapsychology.
I had realized that some of those major concepts were not correct
either in theory or in demonstrable fact.
I had thought, even since childhood, that some of the nomenclature
used as a basis for consensus reality regarding psychic stuff was in
fact silly and stupid.
For example, take the word PSYCHIC -- a term used with wild abandon
so much so that everyone assumes they and all others KNOW what is
meant by it.
As I remember it, I think I was about six when someone indicated to
my parents that some of my experiences were PSYCHIC. I overheard
this, and immediately chimed in by asking what it meant.
What then followed (and which went on for about two weeks and came
to involve our extended family, various friends of my two
grandmothers, my Sunday School teacher, and finally the local
minister) was a great deal of psychobabble accompanied by an
entirely disproportionate amount of ill humor.
Kids are noted for asking embarrassing questions, probably because
they haven't yet fully adapted to the no-speak, absolute silence
aspects of the consensus realities they will ultimately clone.
And in my case, after asking what SEX was all about, asking what
PSYCHIC meant was the next single biggest nomenclature bit to cause
a very unreasonable amount of upset.
The Useless Nature of the Term
"Psychic"
I don't particularly care if the term "psychic" is used or not.
After all, one has little control with regard to consensus
realities, or regarding the mighty social forces that establish
them. And so I'm not going to grind my dilapidated mental gears over
"psychic."
But "psychic" is a good exemplar of consensus reality nomenclature
that achieves wide usage -- but which has never had a stable
definition. And so I'll use this word as exemplary of the other many
definitionless terms encoded into this or that consensus reality.
I will only say that the word has never been adopted in a number of
countries, precisely because it has no definition -- Germany, China,
Japan, for example, while the French resisted its usage until just
recently. The term was used in pre-Soviet Russia, but was eradicated
during the reign of the USSR.
Of course, one then wonders how psychic matters are discussed in
those countries without the term "psychic." Well, quite creatively,
actually.
As to the term PSYCHIC, there IS a formal definition for it having
to do with human mental phenomena "which lay outside of the
boundaries of science." But this "definition" induces ambiguity
which is shifty and unstable.
So, much beyond that ambiguity, PSYCHIC can mean anything anyone
wants it to mean (including abnormal, wacko, crazy, illusory,
imagination, unscientific, irrational, illogical, paranormal,
transcendental, non-material, the work of the devil, a gift of God,
an ability, an exceptional human experiencing -- and on and on)
until one DOES realize why it exists as an over-simplifying
stereotype the exact or detailed meaning of which is absolutely
unnecessary.
So, discussing psychic stuff with someone who believes it the work
of the devil, with someone else who believes it to be scientifically
illogical, and then with a transcendentalist, actually consists of
dealing with THREE confusions, of which ambiguity is the chief
characteristic.
Here it would be obvious to all but a high-density dimwit that the
conceptual information packages the three are utilizing are
completely different -- although all three are utilizing the same
word: PSYCHIC.
Indeed, there are many words utilized for which meanings are vague
and ambiguous. And these are usually very popular -- such as the
words "stupid," "groovy," "nerd," or "abnormal" which can ardently
be utilized every which way, and much to the glee of those who do
so.
In any event, stable meanings for an ambiguous term are
"unnecessary," because each of us anyway reduces whatever it MIGHT
mean so that it fits with our own "realities." This IS true at the
individual level, and true as well of the vaporous realms of human
activity I won't dare to point up because doing so might erupt in
volcanic overflows.
It is little wonder, then, that as the conceptual contours of
parapsychology began to take on concrete formats (during the 1930s)
that the term PSYCHIC was more or less expunged from it.
It was replaced by the "concept" of "PSI," this nothing more than a
letter of the Greek alphabet. But this was a step out of one
ambiguous frying pan into one hotter and bigger.
It could have been replaced by the letter "X" with just as good
avail.
But I've often wondered why it wasn't replaced with something more
dramatic and fetching -- such as "the Adelphus Factors" of human
awareness.
At any rate, if one wishes to write about "the Adelphus Factors,"
one might get away with the neologism, but thereafter one must do so
via EXISTING concepts and nomenclature -- such as utilizing terms as
perception, awareness, mind, and etc., and all of which have
established, over-simplified and somewhat ambiguous "definitions."
And PLOP, there one is back into the consensus realities which
utilize and depend on those terms.
Concepts Missing or Absent Within
Consensus Reality Formats
There is one additional category within consensus reality formatting
that is of importance so supreme that few can even notice its
egregious existence.
I'll pick up this category in another essay in this series, because
before taking it on we need to examine at length a few examples of
it and its overall implications -- always, of course, with regard to
discussions leading to the activation of the superpowers.
But a very brief note here is required.
One of the primary or principal signatures of a consensus reality is
that the string or interlocking of its fundamental
over-simplifications are thought to have no holes or blank spaces in
it.
If it is THOUGHT to contain such holes or blank spaces, the
"consensus" tends to become shaky and even unglued. Even if such
holes may be apparent, still it is thought that whatever they
represent "will ultimately be explained within and by" the
fundamental concepts of the consensus reality.
As but one example, when the modern sciences "went" totally
materialistic, beginning about 1845, and then firmly so during the
1920s, it did so on the basis that science "expects to find
materialistic explanations for everything." A noted encyclopedia
(published during the 1930s, even states as much -- that science has
already discovered basic materialistic explanations for everything.
And what was left was only, to quote, "a mop-up job."
Unfortunately for THIS much vaunted and hyped "scientific" consensus
reality, the electron microscope was in process of being invented at
about the same time as the encyclopedia was published. Holes and
blank spaces were thus discovered, and new mops were bought and
employed, even though the electron microscopes showed that the mops
themselves were, at a certain level of their atomic structure, not
composed of material matter at all. Alas. I drift in my attempts at
sardonic witticism.
And alas, again. If holes and blank spaces DO exist within given
consensus realities, they none-the-less are looped over so as not to
be all that visible. And if push comes to shove, they are merely
stereotyped as the "unexplainable," and so everyone thinks they know
what they are -- unexplainable.
The "alas" part of this is that when one clones into a consensus
reality format, one also clones the holes and black spaces, too, and
usually with "unexplaining" nomenclature readily at hand.
One very good example of this looping over all the holes that need
to be mopped up was the consensus reality which "explained" that
humans have only five physical senses and no others. Most frontier
people, miners, sailors, and the early aeronauts knew this was sheer
idiocy.
But for the masses, it "explained" the scientifically confirmed
limits of the human senses, and also established why it was useless
or neurotic or psychopathic to propose there were more senses, much
less to utilize scientific funding to do so. All of which, of
course, amounted to nothing more than a heaping pile of mierda del
toro.
I will now postpone continuing this major discussion regarding the
structure of consensus realities, and will pick it up again in two
essays ahead under the headings of Paradigm Shifts Relevant To The
Activation Of The Superpowers and Performance Versus Knowledge.
The Answer to the Two Most Frequently
Asked Questions
Each specimen of our species is a fabulous specimen, naturally
endowed with very many impressive faculties, most of which have
never been identified, but many of which have -- and are defeated
anyway.
Some portion of these faculties DO respond when outside stimulation
is applied to them, the stimulation achieved by the inflow of
information and by practical exercises pertinent to their
enhancement.
Other of the faculties, however, apparently are of the self-start-up
kind. Evidence for the existence of these faculties is not only
voluminous, but convincing.
The issue then is, if they are not activating, the resolution then
more or less falls into the category of discovering what is
preventing them from doing so.
Well, anyone who desires to do so is urged to search for THIS kind
of information. I'd be interested in receiving notification from
anyone who discovers the existence of something along these lines. I
have nothing to recommend along these lines, at least regarding the
activation of the superpowers.
However, many sages of the past have indicated among their separate
selves, often divided by centuries, a consensus reality that makes
remarkable sense.
I crudely collect this consensus reality by paraphrasing it: that if
one wants to understand something, one needs to construct mental
concepts that are compatible with IT -- not develop and depend on
concepts that constitute -- well, consensus realities that are full
of looped over holes.
For if a concept that is being utilized to comprehend something is
not as exactly compatible as possible with it, then that concept is,
in one sage's terms, an "erroneous thought-form."
I am very partial to the general context of THIS consensus reality,
but am uncomfortable with the phrase "erroneous thought-form."
This is because everything is what it is, even thought-forms, and as
such is "correct" within itself -- "error" only being possible
relative to something else.
I will therefore take what is a possibly unjustified liberty and
shift the nomenclature of "erroneous thought-form" into "mental
information processing viruses" -- this in an experimental or
hypothetical sense only.
This concept-nomenclature was not possible even twenty years ago,
but the concept of "viruses" has now been widely proliferated into
the consensus realities of ComputerLand, and computer realities.
In that now monolithic Land we can see and have feedback regarding
what an information virus can do to the information processing
functions of computer software and even to computer hardware.
I dare to adapt this concept into the contexts of the faculties
superpowers of the human biomind -- because all of them can easily
be conceived that at base they are information processing and
information transfer systems.
Furthermore, and as will be discussed in detail in a following
essay, the concepts of information theory ARE compatible with them
as information-processing systems, especially in that information
transfer is mitigated by the signal-to-noise ratio.
The increase of "noise" in an information transfer process or system
can be likened to "viruses" -- loosely speaking anyway. The decrease
in "noise" enhances transfer, reception, and more exact duplication
of signal.
If the superpower faculties can be conceived of as signal receptors
or signal monitors, whatever they transfer in the way of information
to the cognitive mind/intellect is usually processed through its
already-installed concept networks or concept "grids."
If the pre-installed concepts are not exactly compatible then the
end product will be signal + the noise introduced by the misfitting
concepts. If the pre-installed concepts not compatible at all, then
the end product will probably consist of noise with the signal so
buried in it that it can neither be located or decoded by the
mind/intellect.
A central question then emerges: wherefrom do we get our
pre-installed concepts that might be noisy ones?
The answer here is twofold. We can formulate them ourselves, and
which is entirely possible, even though many doubt it of themselves.
But there is a "process" which, in some sense, is geared to "help"
us NOT formulate our own concepts, and it is one process that all of
us adapt to in many ways from day one.
And this process is called consensus reality making.
And we adapt to the elements of consensus reality making, for if we
do not all hell descends from a wild assortment of directions.
Anyway, we have to learn our local language, and THAT language
consists not only of its nomenclature, but the meaning-concepts that
go with the nomenclature.
Zippo!
There you are (all of us, including my overly humble self, a CR
Clone of some kind).
Two of the major deterrents or preventives toward the activation of
the superpowers are:
-
information viruses inhabiting
consensus realities and which distort and clog the grids
(arteries) of our thinking processes; and
-
needed but missing information
concepts -- which cause mental information processes to act like
they have viruses
Back to Contents
|