PART 5:
SENTIENCY AND
SENSITIVITY
(01Mar98)
During the last twenty-eight years, one of the questions most
commonly asked of me had to do with what people might read or study
that would help them develop their "psychic powers."
If I was in a sardonic mood at the time, I'd point up that a great
deal has been written, and most of which is very interesting. None
the less, the undeveloped psychic powers, in any activating sense,
have stubbornly remained more or less undeveloped.
In other words, the great heap of the whole that has been written
and studied has not yet resulted in the world becoming thickly
populated with developed superpsychics.
AN ADMITTEDLY FRUSTRATING ISSUE
If one observes this frustrating issue as calmly as possible, it
would appear that there is some subtle difference between reading
and studying about the powers on the one hand, and the actual,
real-time activation of the powers on the other.
That one can read and study (even undergo some kind of training) and
still not have their superpowers activated can easily be interpreted
as evidence that the powers don't exist in the first place.
IN-PUT OF INFORMATION/OUT-PUT OF
PROFICIENCY
People automatically expect
to positively benefit from what they read and study. Indeed, the way
that teaching and learning have been institutionalized in the modern
West leads one to assume as much.
One of the most central computations of Western styles of teaching
and learning is based on providing the intellect with organized
formats of information, usually in step-by-step ways -- after which
various states of competency can be expected to manifest.
In other words, the Western styles of teaching and learning
postulate that there is a direct and automatic relationship between
in-take of organized information and out-put of competency and
efficacy.
There can be little doubt that this in-put/out-put schematic DOES
yield high results in very many areas of endeavor -- so much so that
it is taken for granted that it will work regarding all things.
But one verifiable fact about this schematic is that it works best
where some kind of rote learning is involved. It doesn't work very
well, or not at all, where, for example, creative development is
involved.
One of the major, but subtle, constituents of rote learning is that
the in-put proceeds via organized in step-by-step ways that do not
require the in-put information to be recombined. Indeed, the
efficiency of rote learning can easily suffer if it is messed about.
One of the major, but subtle, constituents of creative learning is
that the elements of all in-put information need to be recombined --
to the degree that if not then creative manifestations might be very
minimal.
In other words, creative learning involves high mobility of
recombinant factors -- whereas rote learning generally does not.
There is no intended attempt here to imply anything negative about
rote learning. The intent is simply to indicate that two different
areas of learning activity do exist. In fact, an important third
category of learning also exists -- but which will be addressed in
other forthcoming essays.
RECOMBINANT INFORMATION
RECOMBINANT is a term
principally arising out of genetic studies, and refers to "the
formation of new combinations of genes via cross-overs through
fertilization."
In the sense of information theory, then, recombinant refers to the
formation of new combinations of information via cross-overs through
what may best be called "inspiration."
An important characteristic of rote learning is that all information
specifically meaningful to the learning is identified and included
in the teaching-learning package. This is to say that rote-learning
is pre-packaged, and does not require cross-overs. In fact, the
efficiency of the rote learning completely depends upon this.
The chief characteristic of creative teaching and learning is
two-fold: it breaks apart various categories of pre-packaged
information in order to recombine the manifold elements; and it also
recombines those elements with cross-over information best acquired
by original deduction and/or "intuitive insight."
But there is a quite large problem involved with creative learning.
This has to do NOT with what information IS available to be
reintegrated into new formulations.
Rather it has to do with the absence of information whose
participation is needed to help in cross-over fertilizations -- and
thus to achieve effective levels of functioning.
For example, if it chances in genetic recombining that the genes
responsible for eyes, ears or genitals somehow drop out of the
cross-over fertilizing process, then the resulting product will not
"develop" those important organs.
It can easily be said that activation of any of the superpowers
falls into the creative type of teaching and learning. But it could
benefit even from the pre-packaged rote type of learning -- IF that
type included all that was needed to aid in effective cross-overs of
recombinant information.
THIS database is somewhat filled with categories of information that
are nowhere included in the typical rote-learning concepts of
"psychic empowerment."
The function of this particular essay is to introduce yet another
set of information that has fallen into absence not only with regard
to the substance of this database, but with regard to just about any
kind of awareness and thinking.
SENTIENCY & SENSITIVITY
This information has to do with SENTIENCY from which various levels
of SENSITIVITY are dependent. The concept of sentiency has, as it
might be said, more than almost completely vanished within all
modernist contexts. Indeed, there is no rote learning package
regarding "psychic development" that even mentions the term.
But it can surely be said that if one wishes to develop any of their
superpower faculties, it must be taken for granted that unless one
expands or extends their sentiency thresholds not much is going to
happen.
To be effective, however, the vital topic of sentiency needs to be
entered into rather obliquely at first.
"DOORS" OF SENTIENCY
The development or enhancement of any human faculty appears to be
almost completely dependent on two primary factors.
It is somewhat difficult to articulate the more exact nature and
elements of the two factors -- largely because of a lack of concepts
and terminology that would be precise enough to reduce ambiguity and
induce clarity.
However, we can utilize the device of a metaphor to help arouse at
least a general, if still quite gross, recognition of the two
primary factors.
Thus, the two factors might approximately be described by leaning on
the metaphor having to do with "doors" of perception, and which
indirectly carries a four-fold connotation:
(1) whether the doors are open;
(2) whether the doors are shut;
(3) what opens the doors;
(4) what keeps them shut.
However, although this "doors of
perception" metaphor is suggestive, it has something of a passive
quality -- if compared with another useful metaphor: that of a
sentient dynamo.
This additional metaphor again can carry four-fold connotation, to
wit:
(1) whether the sentient dynamo
is on line and working;
(2) whether it is off line and closed down;
(3) whether it has been kept well-oiled and in good working
order;
(4) whether it has been shut down, allowed to rust, or has
been wrecked by any number of wrecking possibilities.
In the sense of these metaphors
combined, the two primary factors that can lead to development and
enhancement of human faculties concern whether whatever is involved
is: (1) open and active; or (2) closed and shut down.
However, these two metaphors, although useful, still don't quite
incorporate two additional nuances that are entirely meaningful.
These nuances have to do with how the faculties (whatever they are)
have been treated within larger-picture sociological scenarios,
circumstances or environments people find themselves.
SOCIETAL VECTORS
In the sense of such
larger-picture situations, one will always encounter the phenomena
of tolerance-intolerance, and the phenomena of constructivity and
destructivity.
In the sense of all of the above combined, the two primary factors
regarding development or enhancement of any given human faculty can
roughly be identified as:
The human faculty: |
The human faculty: |
Constructively
dealt with. |
Destructively dealt
with. |
Open. |
Shut. |
On line, producing |
Off line, closed
down. |
Tolerated. |
Not tolerated. |
|
Here we now see two line-ups which seem
easily recognizable as the traditional dichotomies of:
good vs. bad
pro vs. con
positive vs. negative
THE VANISHMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF SENTIENCY
One of the most fundamental constituents of our species is that it
is a sentient one.
Indeed, the existence of our sentiency precedes any and all concepts
that become possible because of it -- such as awareness,
consciousness, sensitivities of all kinds, perception, and last, but
not least, powers of ANY kind.
None of these can exist in the absence of the fundamental
foundations of sentiency.
If this is understood, then it is rather mystifying to find that
discussions regarding sentiency and its awesome potentials are so
minimized as to be nil in such important studies as science,
philosophy, religion, creativity, and empowerment.
By far and large, this can only mean that the vital issue of
sentiency has been plunged into such intolerance that it figures not
at all within anything -- to the degree that it is not even
RECOGNIZABLE as the vital topic that it obviously is.
Sensitivities of all kinds download from species-generic sentiency.
But sensitivities can be "contained," as it were, by societal
strictures -- meaning social systems can determine what
sensitivities are permissible or not permissible. This is to say,
that the extent and functioning of sensitivities, both
quantitatively and qualitatively are linked to various social
perspectives.
But sentiency, as a species-wide generic phenomenology, can, by THAT
its very nature, easily prove to be trans-societal, trans-cultural,
and trans everything else as well.
That this observation might at first seem odd is to be expected --
but only because the topic of sentiency has never been opened up,
while various social maneuvers have closed down any approaches to
it. Thus, although the term can be found in dictionaries, it is not
in common parlance -- except in some science fiction movies.
As a result, inhabitants of various societies might feel they have
sensitivities. But that they are also a sentient life-unit can be
quite alien within their thinking processes, and within any
rote-learning or creative enhancing activities.
SENSITIVITY
However, since various formats of SENSITIVITY are experienced far
and wide, it is useful at this point to refresh the major WESTERN
definitions in order to clear the way to a consideration of
SENTIENCY.
SENSITIVITY:
-
Receptive to sense impressions;
-
Subject to excitation by
external agents;
-
Readily fluctuating;
-
Capable of indicating or
reacting to minute differences or qualities;
-
Readily affected or changed by
various agents, or by exposure or proximity to external
factors" -- such as, for example, social tolerance and
intolerance.
If the above definitions of SENSITIVITY
are correlated with various human faculties and activities, we can
plot the faculties along a spectrum ranging from less sensitive to
hyper-sensitive.
And so we can begin to spot, hypothetically, two general kinds of
human faculties that are identifiable, so to speak, by their
internal apportionment and need of sensitivity.
This is to say, then, that those human faculties requiring the LEAST
amount of sensitivity will probably develop and survive come Hell or
High Water. Thus, in each society there will be found, so to speak,
a sensitivity norm which can be treated with the aplomb of tolerance
-- because it IS the norm.
It would be somewhat recognizable, then, that those human faculties
needing the least quotients of sensitivity skills are those that
tend to be most precisely well-developed among our astonishing
species.
However, if we move along the spectrum or scale of faculties needing
increasing sensitivity, we can begin to enumerate faculties that are
dependent upon a high-signature of sensitivity.
It would be unarguable that the better functioning of such
sensitivity-oriented faculties depend on increasing quotients of
sensitivity skills.
Thus, as we move along the spectrum of human faculties, we can begin
to recognize faculties that need higher or larger sensitivity
development and support.
PANORAMIC SENSITIVITY
Finally, we can encounter
faculties that absolutely need what might be called "panoramic
sensitivity" if they are to function AT ALL.
And among such panoramic sensitivity faculties we would itemize the
superpower faculties -- almost all of which are understood to be not
only hyper-sensitive, but omni-sensitive.
But the ideas of panoramic, hyper- and omni-sensitivity draw
increasingly close the extremely wide scope of our species-generic
sensitivity.
Indeed, it can be assumed that most of the superpower faculties are
those particular faculties somehow DESIGNED for omni- and panoramic
sensitivity.
THE LACK OF RESEARCH REGARDING
THE NATURE AND FUNCTIONS OF SENTIENCY
A rather exhaustive search for documented modern research into the
nature and functions of sentiency reveals something akin to a vacuum
-- a research vacuum apparently so ingeniously engineered that
hardly anyone notices it.
Some work along these lines was attempted during the latter part of
the nineteenth century and the first two decades of the twentieth.
This seminal work, however, was not pursued much past 1932. And so
it can be said that our sentient species does not, as it might,
research the nature and extent of its sentiency or the many fabulous
echelons and combinations of them at the individual sensitivity
levels.
We might grasp around for an explanation of this vacuum. One
explanation might be that various increases of applied and
functional sentiency have to do with increases in power.
If this explanation is a viable one, even in some small aspect, then
the knocking down or wrecking of sentiency development in others is
seen as a way to eliminate them as power competitors of one kind or
another.
In this possible light, the best way to decrease or suppress
increases of applied sentiency, would be to surround the topic with
as much ignorance and ambiguity as possible.
SENTIENCY AND SENSITIVITY AS "SMART
SYSTEMS"
In this essay, the concepts
of SENTIENCY and SENSITIVITY have, by direct implication, been
attached to the so-called "paranormal powers" of our species.
But the assignation of them as "paranormal powers" serves mostly to
relegate them into those social auspices that are very nervous when
it comes to the "paranormal," and which social auspices are usually
very concerned and jittery within anything smelling of power and its
"potentials."
In any event, it can prove very useful to re-designate paranormal
powers as smart systems.
Of itself, the concept of smart systems is usually nerve-wracking to
this or that societal status quo, but at least we have the advantage
of FINALLY perceiving what primary sentiency and secondary
sensitivities are all about. Clearly, the existence of sentient and
sensitivity systems within our species would, in the species master
plan, not be designed to make us more stupid.
Much to the reverse, it can be said achievement of stupidity is much
more the goal of social systems reductive of the sentient and
sensitivity systems. By far and large, stupidity is most often
achieved by social systems than by given individuals.
DEFILEMENT OF COMPREHENSION BY
NOMENCLATURE
It is useful to examine a bit
of nomenclature at this point. The concept of PARANORMAL POWERS is
quite sociologically useful -- because it identifies two topics that
can be justified as of sociological concern and condemnation and can
easily be rejected.
However, societal concerns would be very hard put, even embarrassed,
to condemn smart systems -- since there is rather broad awareness in
all social systems that smart system are needed, perhaps even merely
to survive.
Thus, sensitivity (or certain kinds of it anyway) are accepted, but
probably because sensitivities are almost everywhere -- somewhat
like the air we breathe. But hardly anywhere are increases in
sensitivity taught or supported by mainstream social vectors.
Super-sentiency is not taught, either. There is no perceived need to
do so -- because the topic of sentiency itself has disappeared.
SENTIENCY
Most dictionaries define SENTIENT as: "responsive to or conscious of
sense impressions, finely sensitive in perception or feeling." There
usually is mention of SENTIENTLY as an adverb. These definitions, it
could be submitted, are somewhat minimalizing ones -- considering
the panoramic factors involved. The term SENTIENCY does not appear
in most dictionaries.
There are no main entries for SENTIENCY in the following important
psychical research and parapsychology sources:
-
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF OCCULTISM &
PARAPSYCHOLOGY (1978).
-
HANDBOOK OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY, Benjamin
B. Wolman, Ed. (1977).
-
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY
AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH, Berger & Berger (1991).
A short definition of SENTIENCE is
found, however, in the PSYCHIATRIC DICTIONARY compiled by R. J.
Campbell (1981):
"Mere sensation, apprehension, or
cognition, without accompanying associations or affect."
The DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF
MENTAL DISORDERS compiled and produced by the American Psychiatric
Association, also has no entry for SENTIENCY or SENTIENCE.
There is no mention at all of SENTIENCY in the otherwise wonderful
and extensive ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY, edited by Paul Edwards,
and published by Macmillian Publishing Co. (1967). It seems that
most other authoritative encyclopedias follow suit.
Although "psychics" were referred to as "sensitives" before they
became referred to as "psychics," there is no reference in the Psi
research sources to SENSITIVITY per se -- except as an occasional
reference to the "exteriorization of sensitivity" analogous to
out-of-body experiencing, psychokinesis, telepathy, etc.
Now, it should be said that no Psi function could possibly exist if
such functions were not first built upon, or were not extensions of,
some form of sentiency and sensitivity.
Thus, if we dare to consider that special formats of sentiency and
and sensitivity are the horses that
pull the cart of Psi and associated perceptions, then we are
faced with the somewhat astonishing probability that the cart
has been dissected and pulled apart in every possible way.
The horses, however, are thought so
unimportant that no one has bothered to study them.
SENTIENCY AND MENTAL INFORMATION
PROCESSING GRIDS
Early in this database was
placed an essay entitled MENTAL INFORMATION PROCESSING GRIDS -- and
within which INFORMATION POINTS were described.
If one is moved to design an information processing grid that might
be somewhat functional with regard to the superpowers, the concept
of one as a SENTIENT entity could figure as a centrally important
information point within the schematic.
All the other phenomena discussed in this database could then be
placed in some aspect around this central information point -- and
between them all lines could be drawn interconnecting them this way
and that.
Humans have a distinct tendency of viewing things through their own
inventions. Thus, recognition of the nature of sentiency, and some
of its parameters, probably has something in common with sonar,
radar, microscopes and telescopes -- and maybe even with the
Internet. Such hypothetical possibilities will be elaborated in a
forthcoming essay.
Back to Contents
|