* * *
For the purposes of this document I distinguish between "issue" and "problem" in their noun forms.
I point up that the distinction between an issue and a problem is often vague. But a problem is something that needs to be solved or resolved. An issue needs to be considered in the light of acceptance or rejection.
The central issue regarding remote viewing (distant-seeing) does not at first refer to the phenomenon of remote viewing itself.
Rather, it refers to whether our species possesses what might be called, for lack of a better phrase, human superpowers of mind -- of which remote viewing would be just one.
Like most issues, this one ultimately calls for either of two conclusions or decisions:
The issue in the first instance is --not-- whether individual
specimens of our species possess superpowers of mind. The issue
turns on whether such superpowers are inherent at the species
If it is concluded or decided that our species --does not-- inherently possess the superpowers, then whether they emerge or do not emerge in individual specimens has no relevancy in the light of that conclusion or decision.
If it is accepted that our species --does-- possess the superpowers, then it is to be expected that manifestations of them would spontaneously emerge in individual specimens, and that the rudiments of the superpowers are inherently contained within all specimens.
* * *
All issues must be considered from their largest available
perspective. In order to achieve this, the largest perspective
must first be identified.
Failure to identify the largest perspective ultimately means that the issue in question will be considered within the boundaries of lesser contexts -- and which contexts are inappropriate because they --are-- lesser.
It is in this way that all issues are converted and downgraded into problems that persist as such because they cannot be resolved or solved in the absence of considering their largest perspectives.
* * *
The top-line thinkers of our contemporary period are certainly
equipped to consider human powers and superpowers at the species
level. Such a consideration would indeed be compatible with considering
the human genetic pool -- and which consideration is based on
the largest available perspectives of human genetic biology.
The human gene pool is in process of being mapped. There is no reason not to map the inherent human powers and superpowers of mind in some sort of equivalent way. Mapping the powers and superpowers would establish their largest perspective possible.
Since this mapping is possible in theory and principle, and since it should be done as a primary and first effort, --all-- objections to the existence of the species superpowers are out of order and are no longer acceptable.
* * *
Any decision that our species does not possess superpowers
of mind is untenable... --if-- the occurrence of them throughout
our history and down through the successive generations is considered.
Manifestations and rudimentary experiencing of them have occurred
in all pre-modern societies and in the modern ones as well.
How they have been variously treated in given social frameworks though, is a separate situation that is distinct from the species issue.
This situation is separate because social frameworks arise and vanish, come and go, become fashionable then unfashionable, and are replaced at a great rate of social change.
How, then, the superpowers have been treated within temporary social frameworks is actually incidental to the larger scope of the central issue -- the species-wide existence of indwelling superpower faculties.
At its outset, the central problem again does not involve the phenomenon of remote viewing in the first instance.
In its largest available perspective, this central problem has to do with social tolerance and intolerance of the species-wide superpowers of mind faculties.
It should be obvious that social intolerance of the faculties would result in a variety of subsidiary problems. But the central contexts of all these would turn or hinge on the matter of intolerance --- not on the matter of the --existence-- of the superpowers at the species level.
Two principal factors need to be brought to light in this regard and to help bring this central problem into acute focus.
--First--, it should be established that individual specimens of the species --can and do-- adapt their mind functioning to mental information grids whose outputs exude behavioral intolerance and demonstrate it in action. That such specimens also can and do congregate in groups and social enclaves is a matter of observable fact.
--Second--, if our species --did not-- possess the inherent basis for the superpowers of mind, then such superpowers would --never-- manifest even in rudimentary form. In this instance, neither tolerance nor intolerance of them would ever arise and never need be considered.
* * *
It is to be understood, then, that the matters of tolerance
or intolerance --do arise-- because the existence of the superpowers
within our species --also arises-- from generation to generation
and down through our history.
As but one example, --intuition-- can easily be considered one of the most fundamental human superpowers of mind. If the history of our species is fairly and objectively assessed, intuition has played an enormous role throughout it.
Rudimentary forms of intuition can be found in all specimens of our species -- and it is quite probable that the only factors which prevent development and enhancement of it are adaptive tolerance and disadaptive intolerance.
* * *
As a working term, a --faculty-- is defined as a natural aptitude,
a naturally-existing physical or mental power or function -- and
"one of the powers of mind formerly held by psychologists
to form a basis for the explanation of all mental phenomena."
The last definition here is a bit confusing in that the human species does not naturally contain --one-- faculty regarding anything, but a very large number of them. It is more rational and logical to say that faculties form the basis for the explanation of all physical-mental phenomena --- and which, of course, would include the superpowers of mind that persist in arising in each successive generation of born humans.
As another working term, --facilitate-- means "making easier," while a --facility-- is something that facilitates the emergence of faculties (aptitudes) as regards action, operation, or courses of conduct.
* * *
A review of history reveals that those social frameworks tolerant of the superpowers of mind usually found some kind of ways and means to facilitate their emergence and development --- although the facilitating formats have differed enormously.
The same review of our history also establishes that those social frameworks intolerant of the superpowers usually took sometimes extraordinary means to suppress both access and knowledge of them.
* * *
--All-- social frameworks are --secondary-- manifestations
of the indwelling faculties of our species as regards erecting
enclaves whose essential output-purpose is to include various
specimens of the species that are physically interdependent on
Tolerant enclaves of this kind are usually more permissive with regard to the kinds of various specimens accorded a "fitted place" within the enclave. Intolerant enclaves tend to exclude those specimens that are perceived as misfitting in terms of mutual physical interdependence.
Ideological centralization is a --tertiary-- extension of the enclave-making faculties of our species. Ideological centralization focuses principally on instituting mental orientation dependence, and transcends the secondary manifestation of physical interdependence.
The outputs of ideological centralization may manifest initial concepts of tolerance or intolerance. But in the longer historical run of their rise and fall, a saturation of too much intolerance usually causes them to implode -- for they facilitate less and less regarding overall human potentials.
* * *
Most secondary social frameworks may be expansionist in nature,
especially in the physical sense. But for reasons that are not
at all obvious, almost all ideological centralizing social frameworks
are reductionist in nature.
--Reductionism-- is defined as "a procedure or theory that reduces complex data or phenomena to simple terms" --- usually, it may be added, by rejecting and becoming intolerant of the complex data or phenomena altogether.
In a certain sense, reductionist social enclaves are ideological "enemies" of our species --within-- our species -- in that our human species is wondrously complex both as regards its "data" and its astonishing and often magnificent phenomena.
Functional intuition, for example, is clearly a magnificent phenomenon of our species -- and it is easily included among the basic human superpowers of mind. By inspection of them though, most reductionist social enclaves, if they are "fundamentalist" enough, are not tolerant of intuition even though it is the most widespread of our species' superpowers of mind.
The many problems (all of transitory social origin in their on-going historical sense) regarding our species superpowers of mind are often mistaken and advertised as --the-- issue. But the problems, all of them, are "local" within given social enclaves. The issue, however, is universal to and within our species --- and this issue will persist in existing even though social enclaves come and go.
But the local social issues can clearly be identified as preventing knowledge access to both the issue and to the different superpowers of mind --- of which intuition and remote viewing are but two.
Shortly I'll provide eight mini-essays that expand on the themes and topics of this brief, entitled "Remote Viewing, One of the Human Superpowers of Bio-Mind." Among other topics, these essays will discuss the --Sidhis--, sensory transducers, mental information grids, and twentieth century skeptics and debunkers. (End)