One Of The Human Superpowers Of Biomind

* * *
* * *

[A Series of Eight Mini-Essays]

Ingo Swann



I have earlier entered into the Net for free access, a number of topics having to do with remote viewing. All of those topics so far have involved situational and anecdotal information. More of the same will follow them in the months ahead.

But beyond situational and anecdotal materials, remote viewing is accompanied by SUBSTANTIVE and TECHNICAL matters that pertain to why and how remote viewing exists, and "works."

The substantive and technical matters have been compiled through the years, and in some instances are the joint product of myself and Dr. H. E. Puthoff, working as a team to compare concepts and ideas and then test them. We often benefited from consultation with a large number of scientists, psychologists and other specialists.

I offer the following eight substantive categories for consideration...

1. Remote viewing and its conceptual nomenclature problems

2. Remote viewing as one of the Sidhis

...to be provided in the near future....

3. Remote viewing and sensory transducers

4. Remote viewing and mental information grids

5. Remote viewing and human superpowers of mind

6. Remote viewing in the Twentieth Century

7. Remote viewing and Twentieth Century skeptics and debunkers

8. Projecting remote viewing into the Twenty-first Century

These substantive and technical matters have not been made public during the twenty years remote viewing was considered a developmental asset to the intelligence community.

However, now that the CIA is occupying itself with minimalizing and disowning remote viewing, there is no longer any reason to keep the substantive and technical matters from public view. In any event, all substantive and technical matters have always remained unclassified and proprietary to me as stated in my working contracts as a consultant with Stanford Research Institute and the Psychoenergetics Project established there by Dr. Puthoff.

* * *

What remote viewing consists of is a fairly complex matter that is not easily reduced to simplistic or familiar stereotype concepts. Very few have inspected the long history of remote viewing among our species. Very few have seen or studied high-quality examples of it.

A literature devoted exclusively to remote viewing does not exist, except in some piecemeal ways. Most people, including proponents and antagonists, will consider remote viewing from within what they already know --- or more precisely put, within the LIMITS of what they already know.

If it is considered that the knowledge each individual has basically consists of frames of reference, then the question does arise regarding what those frames do or do not consist of. In individuals, frames of reference may either be adequate or inadequate, precise or imprecise, present or missing. Since no adequate frames of reference regarding remote viewing have ever been constructed, individuals who chance to encounter some aspect of remote viewing naturally will attempt to process its meaning through their existing frames of reference.

* * *

In this regard, it is fair and even just to mention that most people believe the frames of reference they do possess are sufficient to process any information they encounter --- no matter how unfamiliar or even alien that information might be to them.

But it would be obvious that unfamiliar information processed through inadequate frames of reference (inadequate information grids) results in, well, to put it simply, results in a mess or a quagmire of confused information and strange opinions.

* * *

The basic purpose of these eight mini-essays is to contribute to the construction of a proper frame of reference regarding remote viewing --- a frame of reference that does not exist as of this writing.

Unfortunately, this proper frame of reference cannot be constructed within the present limits of the kinds and categories of knowledge typical of the modern West. The construction will require novel and unfamiliar analogies and metaphors.

I will present the necessary information in step-by-step ways, and will attempt to be as clear and concise as possible. But I will not be participating in reductionism back into frames of reference that are not adequate in the first place. I will sometimes say the same thing in different ways so as to try to accommodate a wider scope of integration of the new information.

* * *

But in essence I will be painting a new picture --- a LARGER new picture which will not become completely visible until it is finished.

The elements of this new picture cannot be reduced back into existing frames of reference, back into existing "realities" --- because if this were possible, then the necessary picture would already exist. It does not exist. But the basic rudiments of it will exist by the end of these small essays.

* * *

You may, therefore, wish to read these essays more than once. For, even by the second reading the general outlines of the picture will have become more intelligible, and its separate element more fitting. As it stands as of this writing, the bigger picture of remote viewing is not intelligible --- even to many of those who accept its existence.

The First Central Issue

There is one central issue that must be considered ahead of remote viewing, and which is a subsidiary topic to the central issue.

This is whether our species possesses what, for lack of a better concept, might be called superpowers of mind -- of which remote viewing would be one.

Without an answer in the positive to this central question, then remote viewing will never either make sense or find a fitted place within the overall image of our species.

It is generally accepted that our species possesses powers of mind. But it is also understood that how these are identified and treated, depends on social criteria and values, and then upon individual frames of reference based on those criteria and values.

Social criteria and values also tend to establish the contours of behavioral norms, while the same criteria and values also have something to do with which formats of knowledge are accepted, or rejected.

Individuals wishing to fit into the social criteria and values are more or less required to adapt to the accepted frames of reference and dis-adapt from the rejected ones.

If this discretionary process is successful enough, then the individual is accepted as fitted into the contours of the behavioral norms, and especially into the frames of reference that characterize their peer groupings.

* * *

The distinction in the West between so-called normal powers of mind and superpowers of mind is largely a sociological artifact arising out of the dominant frames of reference of the Modern Age --- which began in the mid-1800s, but which is thought to be majorly representative of the Twentieth Century.

As has been stated in many other sources, the modernist frames of reference were derived from the philosophy of scientific materialism. Within the auspices of that philosophy, those human powers of mind that seemed to disobey the laws of matter were shaved off the central frames and relegated to the "impossible."

Thus arose the double notion of normal powers of mind, and that category of mind powers that were dubbed "paranormal" and excluded from the mainline frames of reference. Most pre-modern societies did not make this two-fold distinction and otherwise saw the superpowers as extensions of the usual ones.

* * *

As many post-modern researchers have realized, this distinction worked to prevent the fuller spectrum of human powers of mind from being adequately mapped.

And it is increasingly being accepted that critics and skeptics of the superpowers are utilizing out-dated and limited frames of reference.

This growing realization has spawned the effort to map the fuller spectrum of human powers of mind. This effort has become revitalized as will be discussed in the last essay of this series.

* * *

In any event, each reader of these essays will have to decide whether or not our species possesses superpowers of mind. This is "the" central issue.

The Second Central Issue

The second central issue is more easily (and CLEARLY) stated. There is nothing wrong with attempting to research our species' superpowers of mind --- any more than there is anything wrong with attempting to research anything.

Indeed, while the Twentieth Century failed in so many other things, it succeeded in establishing one glory --- organized research --- and research can easily be seen as one of the hallmarks of the human mind in all its aspects.

Research of the superpowers, if permitted and pursued, will answer many things pro or con. And such research will surely remodel the earlier inadequate frames of reference --- even those of parapsychology already known to be inadequate. Condemnation of the superpowers before the facts of researching them constitutes one of the failures of the Twentieth Century.

Unless one is of the opinion that we already know all there is to know about the powers of the mind, then the Modern Age exclusion of the superpowers from research doubtlessly will be rectified by exploring and researching them. Such research of the superpowers though, cannot take place based on earlier inadequate frames of reference that excluded such research. For one thing, those frames prevent the right questions from being discovered.

One of the most correct questions is whether our species does indeed possess superpowers of mind.

Now, all this having been said, we'll begin diving into the intricacies of what follows.

Remote Viewing and Its Larger Picture

In our present modernist culture, remote viewing is considered an "inexplicable phenomenon," rather than as evidence of one of the human superpowers of mind.

All things take on greater luminosity and comprehension when they are considered within the larger contexts in which they are embedded. If something is isolated or alienated from those larger contexts, then fuller comprehension of its substance and meaning is denied it.

Remote viewing is no exception. It is a phenomenology of mind that bears extensive relationship to a number of larger contexts. But it has been dis-embedded from the larger contexts applicable to it.

Thus remote viewing seems a singular thing... something really far out on the fringes where it has no apparent relationship to anything else. It especially seems alien to most frames of reference (mindsets) and modern philosophies characteristic of the Twentieth Century. And so it is within the limitations of those mindsets and philosophies that the existence and possibilities of remote viewing are challenged and sometimes mocked.

Yet, however one might choose to consider remote viewing, it is nonetheless one of the human superpowers of mind... and this is the first and the greatest context within which it should be considered. Perhaps the only context.

* * *

Under other names, remote viewing and other superpowers of mind have been noted from time immemorial, while elements of it have manifested in most pre-modern cultures. And since this has continuously been so, remote viewing is a species thing, as it were --- a power inherent in our species.

This clearly implies that all born humans are carriers of the superpowers and their potentials --- in much the same way that all born humans are carriers of the human gene pool. Since this is so, it would be expected that elements of the superpowers will manifest in given individuals down through the generations.

What different societies and mindsets do with, or about the human superpowers of mind, is a separate issue. There should be no conflict regarding the existence of the human superpowers of mind. But there can be conflict regarding how they are culturally and socially treated. This treatment has ranged from supportive tolerance to destructive intolerance, and even down to woeful persecution of the most obvious carriers of the powers.

* * *

Statement of Three Essential Problems


Under other nomenclature, remote viewing is one of the human superpowers of Biomind whose existence is quite well-noted in transcultural lore and historical documents of the last 5,000 years. The proper context then, for examining and discussing it, lies within the parameters of all human superpowers of Biomind.

This context is very large, and it clearly includes more than just remote viewing. The chief problem here is that the larger parameters have never been identified very well and so, important elements of the bigger picture are lacking. This lack leaves the larger contexts untreated, and so many are unaware of them and naturally seek to reduce ideas of remote viewing into their personal realities and educational backgrounds.


It might be thought that Problem 1 can easily be remedied by submitting it to discussion and examination. As it happens, though, English and the Romance languages don't contain nomenclature either sufficient or precise enough to do so.

Nomenclature is largely derived from concepts, but in the case of Problem 1, the relevant concepts have never really been identified. For example, "telepathy" and "intuition" are both elements of human superpowers of mind. But some thirty types of telepathy can be listed, and about two dozen regarding intuition. Yet we persist, in English, in utilizing only the two terms.

Precision of concepts is therefore lacking, and this accounts for the missing nomenclature. To paraphrase Dr. Jean Houston, if the only tool you have is a hammer, you will treat everything like a nail. We use only the two terms as hammers to deal with very refined matters which need precision "brain surgery" tools.


The human Biomind organism uses information processes to establish not only concepts of reality, but also awareness of human functioning. The processes of awareness of human Biomind functioning have not been identified very well, and nomenclature appropriate for what has not been identified has not evolved. And so, not only is conceptual nomenclature missing, but the missing contextual knowledge precludes adequate consideration of the true extent of the Biomind's information processes.

It is accepted that we cannot speak intelligently about that which we don't understand, about that which we know nothing about. We don't know very much about the human superpowers. This lack of, or abyss, is an empty gap in our knowledge of the true extent of Biomind functions.

As we will see in the fourth essay ahead, Problem 3 is partially remedied by introducing the concept of "information processing grids." The human Biomind can be described as a recombinant analog mechanism capable of assimilating, processing, comparing and recombining enormous amounts of information.

The term "grid" refers to "grating"... an inter-networking system. It is technically defined as "a network of uniformly-spaced horizontal and perpendicular lines for locating points of information by means of coordinates." That the human Biomind functions in grid-like ways will not be unfamiliar to biocyberneticists or information theorists --- but will be unfamiliar to those who utilize other models of Biomind functioning.

It can fairly be said that some of the "points of information" refer to concepts and relevant nomenclature utilized by individuals and which are needed to process information and which result in understanding it. However, the absence of certain concepts and nomenclature equates to missing links within the individual's information grids.

This simply means that the individual cannot precisely or adequately process information for which points in their grids are missing. Such information will seem alien to them -- and probably arouse internal mind "conflicts" within whatever the individual IS utilizing as information processing grids.

The reason for the internal conflicts is obvious. The "new" information cannot properly be fitted into the existing information processing grids. As will be discussed ahead, some individuals may seek to externalize the conflicts, rather than work toward enlarging and extending the capacities of their information processing grids.

Combining the Three Basic Problems

When the three basic problems outlined above are combined, a larger interlocking problem emerges, and which larger problem is the central substance of these mini-essays. But the basic meaning of the combined problem is that remote viewing can't be understood by information processing grids not equipped with appropriate and expansive concepts and the nomenclature needed to flesh out those concepts.

The "work" of the following mini-essays is to attempt to provide certain cognitive rudiments that allow the construction of information processing grids needed for the comprehension of remote viewing.

It is completely accepted that unless something is understood, then no one can make it work for them. It is also understood that if one is utilizing the wrong models or precedents in order to understand something, then all that emerges is conflict and confusion.

(End of Introduction)