THE LONG-DISTANCE FACTOR
Because the long-distance factor was soon to figure very prominently in the actual history of remote viewing, it is worthwhile to begin some admittedly difficult discussions of it at this point.
One of the principle reasons for doing so is that it always was (and still is) the LEAST examined and discussed aspect of all the other phenomena involved.
This is to say that the long-distance factor is taken for granted as an important element. It is therefore never inspected or really wondered about, and is thus lost or suspended in mental vacuums devoid of frames of reference that are appropriate to the whole of the remote-viewing phenomena.
The central problem involved is that distance is always measured via some kind of physical dimensionalism, or at least can be expected to be measured within standard frames of reference having to do with standard physical dimensions.
In other words, in the physical sense, there is point A and point B, with C indicating the separation between them. The separation equates to the near- or far-distance between, and which is usually interpreted via the clock time it takes to traverse the distance.
The foregoing constitute perfectly good and workable frames of reference for physicality. And so if one does not know that other frames of reference regarding "distance" do exist, then one will probably non-consciously superimpose the physical frames over those other unknown ones.
And to the degree that this unknowing superimposition does take place, then "cognitive dimensions" will accordingly DECREASE, not only with regard to the processes of remote viewing, but to other formats of PSI, including those of telepathy and clairvoyance.
It is going to take several discussions to bring the foregoing into a focus that can be grasped with relative ease.
But one simple way to begin acquiring this focus is to assert that the parameters of mental "distance" per se are NOT modeled in accord with physical distance parameters. Many already understand this in general, of course, but it is none the less difficult to describe and articulate.
There is an old motto that applies here. If the only tool one has is a hammer, then one will tend to treat everything like a nail.
Thus, if one only has physical frames of reference regarding distance, then one will tend to think about all things as physically separate and having a near or distant "place."
Although the importance of frames of reference tends to be minimized in what might be thought of as general or average Western thinking, it IS somewhat understood that there ARE different ways of considering things, each of which yield different "realities."
Even so, it is always somewhat of an uncomfortable, mind-bending shock to discover this in some factual way, and so people tend to avoid undergoing the shock in the first place.
One plausible reason for this is that certainty is much preferable to uncertainty, and so if something seems to instigate uncertainty, then resistance to and avoidance of it is rather predictable -- ON AVERAGE.
Another plausible reason has to do with the scope of ones awareness parameters, which is to say, the scope of what one is accustomed to being aware of.
Relative to this, it can easily be shown that everyone is born into certain socio-cultural-environment factors.
These not only contain basic frames of reference that both characterize and are useful within the confines of those factors, but also establish limits of what one should become aware of.
Individuals imprint on those factors, and at some point, usually at puberty, the imprintings undergo what is called "maturation lock down," a process that also locks out other frames of reference and awareness parameters.
One of the subtle problems involved, however, is that awareness parameters are usually formatted along the lines of some lowest common denominators that are most sharable within the majority.
After that, any experienced awareness that is not consistent with the common denominators is considered to be unusual or worse, because it tends to "threaten" the presumed certainty of the common denominators.
It is thus that most do not like to consider the possible validity of awareness parameters that are either different or larger than their own.
It can be said that forms of PSI, including, for example, remote viewing and telepathy, experientially involve parameters of awareness that are not consistent with those that are appropriate to and efficient within the realms of physicality.
During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries of the modern West, those realms were culturally grouped together within the frames of reference governing philosophical and scientific materialism.
Philosophical materialism, even if sounding elegant, was always something of a mentalistic quagmire.
Even so, scientific materialism became very apt and successful with regard to examining physicality, both directly in substance and indirectly via mathematics.
What is not generally discussed about the modern scientific process, however, is that it exclusively defined and increased sharable parameters of awareness regarding physicality.
It is important to become aware of this success, because before the advent (circa 1845) of the modern physical sciences and their methods, awareness parameters of physicality were always somewhat ambiguous and ill-defined within most cultural set-ups.
If, however, one confines "reality" to physicality, and/or also confines the total scope of awareness to it, then problems with regard to the scope of awareness emerge.
The reason is that the human species clearly possesses elevations, ranges, or spectrums of awareness that, so to speak, are additional or external to those kinds of awareness that are specifically appropriate within the limits of physicality.
Indeed, the exact context of the paragraph above was tacitly established within science itself with regard to defining (as of 1967) the term PSYCHIC as: "Lying outside the sphere of physical science or knowledge."
Even though this scientific definition is found in dictionaries, most dont realize that it exists as such. And so many, including some scientists themselves, do not realize that this scientifically-endorsed definition tacitly establishes that something DOES lie outside of the sphere of the physical science and their specialized kinds of knowledge.
The further direct implications are that whatever does lie outside require other kinds of awareness besides those commensurate with physicality, and also require different frames of reference with regard to same.
Distance, or even long-distance, is, of course, a physical construct that that establishes physical parameters between or among things that are physically separate. Thus, awareness of distance is a physical attribute that is efficient within physicality.
But THAT particular format of awareness is NOT efficient within, for example, "Thoughts Through Space," largely because THOUGHTS themselves, and awareness of them, vigorously elude definitive incorporation into the contexts of physicality.
And if this is not enough to shock, it simply has to be said that SPACE itself is only demarcated by physically measurable distance between TWO or more physical things. But much beyond that, science has not yet achieved any appreciable understanding regarding the nature of space itself, this a continuing situation that has confounded, for example, astrophysicists for some time.
What IS known, however, is that if suitably physically equipped to do so, one can physically go THROUGH space.
That one can also go mentally through it was established by the Wilkins/Sherman experiments. And those experiments clearly established that the parameters of physical and mental awareness are different, and as such absolutely require different frames of reference.
In any event, Wilkins and Sherman could have entitled their book as TELEPATHY ACROSS DISTANCE. Doing so would have made their book more "accessible" and "politically correct" within the trusted, common denominator frames of reference regarding physicality and average awareness of it.
THAT title would have least kept the physical realms somewhat comfortably in view, in that DISTANCE, distance intervening between physical things, is a trusted and expected aspect of physicality, and which is amenable to quantitative analysis via statistical theorizing and extrapolating.
Well, this is enough about the long-distance factor for now, and, to be sure, this topic will be re-introduced several times in chapters ahead.
But an important distinction has been made, and perhaps the perceptive reader will already have realized what it is. If not, dont worry, because it will later be made abundantly more clear herein.
Meanwhile, it will be helpful to discuss certain aspects of the Wilkins/Sherman experiments.
During their 1937-38 experiments, when Sherman was physically in New York and Wilkins was physically somewhere in the Arctic, there was an average long-distance of about 3,000 physical miles between them.
Furthermore, although Wilkins had begun his trek by having something of an operating schedule to be at this or that place by a given time, the schedule was often defeated by unanticipated equipment failure, inclement weather, other kinds of delays and upsets, and so forth.
How, then, was Sherman to "know" or "locate" WHERE Wilkins was physically at in any given long-distance aspect?
According to the pre-arranged experiment plan, Sherman was to "tune in" on Wilkins at specified days and times for nearly six months, with the physical distance between them averaging about 3,000 miles.
Wilkins was to note in his log where he was at and what he was doing or experiencing at those pre-arranged clock-time windows.Since his schedule fell to pieces even before he took off for the Arctic, Sherman clearly could not tune in to a physical place.
Therefore, physical frames of reference depending on physical distance and place measured by clock-time miles or meters were useless with regard to locating where Wilkins was at the times of the pre-arranged "windows."
The principal question thus emerges: what DID Sherman tune in to?
Even if Sherman had known where Wilkins was physically, such would not have contributed to some of his impressions as follow:
December 20, 1937:
Regarding Wilkins, SHERMAN in New York has the impression that "You have some rare wine offered yourself and crew tonight.
WILKINS in the Arctic records: "Blueberry wine -- not bad!"
December 21, 1937:
SHERMAN: "You have another project looming -- to follow immediately after this work [is] completed for Russian government. Think it [will be] in association [with] Lincoln Ellsworth, and that further communications will be exchanged about it."
WILKINS records: "Message from Ellsworth about his expedition to the South [i.e., the Antarctic] next season."
January 24, 1938:
SHERMAN: "You are out somewhere -- I see smoke curling up from fire -- three tents appear to be nearby."
WILKINS: "Wood stove in radio tent, always smoking or steaming in low temperature. Two tents."
January 27, 1938:
SHERMAN: "Strange as it seems to record, you appear to be dancing tonight -- or listening to dance music by radio."
WILKINS: "Played victrola. Some tango records tonight, first time since arrival in North. Also trying to learn Russian by linguaphone, but alone as usual."
During same "viewing," SHERMAN also noted: "A dog seems to have been injured in Aklavik and had to be shot -- was injury sustained in flight with others -- or something falling on it? Quite a strong feeling here."
WILKINS: "Out walking -- came upon a dog dead on ice -- it has been shot through the head -- thought about it strongly for some time, wondered reason for killing."
February 15, 1938:
SHERMAN: "Large box-like, crated affair seems to contain motor you have bought to replace damaged engine."
WILKINS:"Engine in large square box."