Ingo Swann (22Feb97)
Digging into consensus realities tends to be a boring occupation if one considers only what they represent to those incorporated into them.
But if one investigates how information is processed because of them, they tend to become very interesting indeed.
As a general rule of thumb in this regard,
it can be seen that information that can be fitted into a given
consensus reality is processed, at least in some kind of way.
But information that cannot be fitted is usually NOT processed
There are very many examples of this
that can be identified. But many of them, if they were pointed
out, cause vigorous emotional responses that sometimes can be
So I'll select an example that will merely confuse rather than elicit emoting.
The general consensus reality about "paranormal"
perception conceives that this IS basically a matter of PERCEPTION.
But if one says that paranormal perception is neither paranormal nor a matter of basic perception, the chances are that the consensus reality won't shake all that much -- because the message of that statement is simply routed through those concepts that processes it as "idiotic," "stupid," or "he doesn't know what he is talking about." End of that tiny story.
However, if one goes on to say that the
basic issue involves information transfer and the signal-to-noise
ratio BEFORE perceptions are constructed out of them, then another
thing happens. The eyes of those people firmly locked into the
perception concept are likely to wobble. The wobbling is caused
by the person's mental information processing grids attempting
to find a suitable conceptual basis via which to process THAT
If no pre-installed concepts are found, then the message is shed from the grids like water off a duck's back. End of that story.
The above might be a bit crude as an
example. And so it might sound rather far-fetched at first --
because most people think they can and do process all information
they encounter. Others observing them, however, often can spot
which information is not being processed, or which information
is being mis-processed.
He or she "is not getting the point," as its often said. Or, how he or she "came to THAT conclusion is beyond belief."
However, if a given consensus reality
shared among many does not contain concepts relevant to something,
the chances are that NO ONE within the consensus reality will
If whatever it is does get processed, it will be routed over to the nearest similar concept and processed through it.
For example, the neo-term REMOTE VIEWING
has gained popularity and is even verging on entering into a very
wide consensus reality.
But all evidence to date shows that the "meaning" of RV is being routed through the familiar concept of "psychic perception." And so "remote-viewing" is being accepted as an updated replacement term for psychic perception.
However, RV in its intended original
usage was as an adjective merely to distinguish a particular type
of clairvoyant experiment; and then later used as a concept involving
a process having to do with a refined form of INTELLECTUAL INTEGRATION
that depended on dealing with the signal-to-noise ratio.
Now intellectual integration is considered a normal process that does or can occur in anyone. And so it is far removed from psychic perception which is thought of as paranormal.
So the whole of this is like unknowingly getting on the wrong train or bus.
Almost all consensus realities hold that
everyone can mentally process, at the most basic physical level
at least, the elements of everything that is in that physical
level. And so no one ever thinks to look for examples indicating
that this is not true.
But such examples can be found, and I will now digress to consider one of them so that it won't seem I'm simply talking that stuff which comes out of a bull's back door.
When Charles Darwin set sail as a naturalist
abroad the BEAGLE, he embarked on a voyage that was to last six
years (1831-1836.) Prior to this, the theory of ORGANIC EVOLUTION
had been around for a few decades, but Darwin was to firmly establish
it -- and shift the orientation of many consensus realities. For
it was on this long voyage that Darwin felt he had found proof
of the theory of evolution.
But he encountered another kind of thing that was so alien to any consensus reality that hardly anything has been made of it.
As the BEAGLE wended its way southward
along the east coast of South America, it came to what was then
known as Patagonia, a region of some 300,000 square miles, now
divided into southern Argentina, the extreme south-east part of
Chile, and northern Tierra del Fuego.
And it was in Patagonia that the Beagle's crew and Darwin encountered an exceedingly strange phenomenon -- one which, in my somewhat overworked opinion, was more important than the theory of organic evolution.
Unable to moor the big ship, the BEAGLE,
close to shore, it was anchored at some distance from land out
in a bay, and some of the crew and Darwin went ashore in a small
Once ashore they were welcomed with excitement by the local Patagonians of that particular region. In all this excitement, it soon transpired that the locals were amazed that Darwin, et.al. had traversed the great ocean in such a small boat.
Now, the BEAGLE was anchored out in the
bay, but it was plainly visible. And so the crew said that they
hadn't crossed the great ocean in a small boat, but a far larger
one. And they pointed to the big ship anchored in the bay.
Try as they might, however, the local Patagonians COULD NOT SEE the big ship -- and so a period of confusion ensued. The BEAGLE was literally INVISIBLE to the Patagonians, not only conceptually so, but eyeball so.
As it turned out, there WAS one person
among the Patagonians who COULD SEE the ship. This was the local
shaman, whose credentials imply the sighting of things and stuff
others do not perceive -- although it is quite possible for them
to do so, and as we shall now see.
Apparently the shaman set about describing
the BEAGLE, its location, the shape of the hull and sails, and
did so by comparing the forms to what was otherwise familiar to
Soon, and as Hollywood lingo might have it, the BEAGLE "faded in," and thus all the Patagonians ended up with eyeball sight of the ship.
This remarkable incident might never
have entered historical sources, except that Darwin noted it in
his diary -- after which it has persisted in existing in that
rational limbo of the "unexplained."
But it does need to be explained, at
least in some kind of theoretical way -- in that what it implies
is completely relevant toward activating any of the superpowers.
I'm not saying that the following is the only way, being merely one experimental way that chances to be somewhat consistent with similar situations.
Roughly speaking, although the Patagonians
had a consensus reality regarding small boats, they did not have
one regarding large ships that might traverse the immense Atlantic
One will have difficulty believing that the ABSENCE of this consensus reality could literally prevent eyeball vision of the BEAGLE, since we believe we see what does exist whether we understand it or not.
In other words, the "normal" consensus reality of the Patagonians had a gaping hole in it regarding big ships. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
There is another more precise way of
putting this -- that the mental information processing grids of
the Patagonians had this hole in them. Meaning that there was
no prior established mental grid which contained information points
regarding large, ocean-going vessels. (Here, please note that
an essay regarding mental
information processing grids (MIPGs)
is already contained in this database.)
The explanatory activity of the shaman
did either one of two things. By comparing the shape-recognition
required to things the Patagonians did include in their consensus
reality, the BEAGLE thus faded up into visibility. Or, perhaps,
the activity of the shaman caused a new grid to form up.
In either case, the Patagonians finally could eyeball if not completely understand the BEAGLE, accompanied, it might be expected, by wonder and awe.
In leaving this incident, it is worth
noting that the original theory of evolution was the theory of
ORGANIC evolution -- and hence applied to organic (biological)
systems. "Organic" was later dropped, and the theory
became the theory of EVOLUTION, since mistaken as applicable to
In this sense, then, evolution is seen as a one-way route, always evolving, always evolving upward and onward.
The concept of DEVOLUTION is obscured this way -- this a concept we will need to deal with in other essays since it is pertinent to the superpower faculties.
Due to the Worldwide Web, the days when
isolated cultures "clashed" with others is over with,
of course, save in the possible case of extraterrestrials. And
so it is hard to notice gaping holes in their consensus realities.
Yet anthropologists earlier in this century spotted quite a number of them, while those working in the diplomatic services have encountered many more.
I will take the time here to give one example of each kind.
Take the concept of SNOW. We utilize
the term SNOW to denote snow, and so snow is snow -- that cold
white stuff, made up of frozen, crystallized water molecules.
So we call snow snow, and that's the end of it, right?
Well, not exactly.
The consensus realities of those living
in warmer climates have no need of knowing, or even believing,
that there are many different types of snow. But such was important
to indigenous people living and existing north of the Arctic Circle
in Siberia, Alaska and far-north Canada.
You see, in those far north climes different types of snow (to say nothing of different types of ice) could be used in different ways, while the different types permitted various kinds of expectations and predictions to be made.
Depending on which sources one consults,
the indigenous peoples of the northern Arctic Circle "evolved"
seven to twenty-one different terms that conceptualized, identified
and specified different kinds of snow and/or ice.
Thus, their understanding of the types of "snow" was very much intellectually integrated in a number of refined ways, and which enhanced their understanding of snow over those who merely have one consensus reality concept for it.
One of the most probable meanings here
is that the Arctic dwellers understood the very many multiple
FUNCTIONS of snow/ice, could discriminate uses, and discriminate
STRUCTURAL forecasts of what the different types implied in terms
of weather, building materials, and so forth. And knowledge of
these types often meant whether survival would be easy, difficult
In other words, they had not only definitive consensus realities about the types of snow, but also possessed intricate MIPGs which permitted more exact analyses of the implications of different kinds of snow.
As it is today, we have only residual
echoes of this kind of thing. Expert skiers have some knowledge
about different types of snow, mostly regarding whether it will
pack up or remain fluffy. Park rangers also like to know if a
given snowfall will pack up and melt steadily, or be loose enough
to pile up and avalanche.
For most of us, though, snow is something to put up with and shovel into piles -- and we need only one bit of nomenclature for that, the result of which is the beginning and end of the snow story.
So, you may be wondering by now what
all this snow stuff has to do with the superpower faculties of
the human BIOMIND.
Well, for example, we have but one nomenclature bit for TELEPATHY -- which is, of course, telepathy.
Thus, IF it should be that there are many DIFFERENT TYPES of telepathy, we are still reduced to utilizing only one consensus-reality making term for them -- and that is the beginning and end of the telepathy story within our present consensus reality.
On the other hand, and assuming there
just might be different types of IT, if one wants to activate
one's own telepathic faculties, well, one needs to know WHICH
type to activate.
In this instance, TELEPATHY as a single generalization will be useless, much in the same way that snow as a single generalization was useless to earlier Arctic dwellers before prefabricated dwellings, welfare subsistence and the benefits of tourist trade.
If one examines in detail the literature
and anecdotal information available about "telepathy,"
one can begin to espy the factual existence of different types
The research method to be utilized to identify the types focuses on the apparent FUNCTION of each type -- i.e., what does this type DO versus that other type? Or what can be done with this versus other types? Or, which kind of information is transferred via one type versus the other types?
There can be little doubt that the different types of snow were identified by employing some such similar method -- with the end result that each type fell into a more exact functional category.
In other words, the earlier Arctic dwellers DID NOT just learn about snow as a conceptual generalization, but about different kinds of snow which enabled the conceptualizations of different kinds of application.
The meaning here is rather straightforward.
If one partakes, so to speak, of a consensus reality within which
only one generalized conception exists for telepathy, it is quite
likely that the existence of TYPES of telepathy will remain as
invisible as the BEAGLE was to the Patagonians.
Now jumping the gun a little here, and
referring to a topic to be enlarged upon in subsequent essays,
all of the superpower faculties appear to have one thing in common.
Each seems to be designed for a specific function -- meaning that if mental information processing grids are not set up (installed) to match each of those specific functions, then the different functions will be invisible and/or dysfunctional to their potential users. And this more or less exactly matches the BEAGLE syndrome of the Patagonians.
In other words, and as we shall see just
ahead, the ABSENCE of such grids will function in ways quite similar
to information processing viruses.
Another way of putting this, although more simplistic, is that the utilization of a single concept regarding telepathy will probably disable identification of its many different types. So, you see, if telepathy is JUST telepathy, then that is the beginning and end of that story, too.
The remedial ACTION (toward activating
the superpower faculties) regarding all of this is not complicated.
Merely by assuming, if only for entertainment purposes, that TYPES
of telepathy exist, the types tend to become more noticeable.
In the past, I've belabored my suffering
MIPGs a great deal, but finally was able to identify thirty-five
or thirty-six different types of telepathy.
I'll not provide this list -- because I think people accept and believe more in what they themselves can become aware of by upward pulling of their own bootstraps.
But one type of telepathy consists of
"sensing," as it is put, sexual availability of others.
This is a rather broad-based telepathic format TYPE pre-existing throughout our species. And it is noticeable because it has an undeniably SPECIFIC FUNCTION hardly anyone can miss.
However, this type of sensing should go hand-in-hand with careful diplomatic approaches -- for reasons that should be obvious to those who did not arrive on Earth just twenty minutes ago.
This type of telepathy, however, is not
usually referred to as TELEPATHIC at all, due mostly to its licentious
characteristics, all of which have been edited out of psychical
and parapsychological consensus realities in order to make their
consensus contexts appropriate to "proper" think.
This humble author, for example, wrote yet another manuscript entitled Psychic Sexuality -- which was rejected by so many publishers I lost count of them. You see, our present consensus realities about psychic stuff do not permit connecting up any of that stuff to sex.
Above, I have mentioned the term "diplomacy."
My research into the nature of diplomacy revealed that one of
its main functions is to comprehend consensus realities and try
to figure out how to get around or trick them.
Thus, diplomatic "skills" are valuable in many ways, if only to try to prevent things going up in flames.
The worst diplomats ever are those who
remain completely unaware of the finer points of consensus realities
that both strategically and tactically contrast with their own.
This was the 1950s conceptual basis, for example, of "the ugly American" who bounced into contrasting consensus realities (i.e., into other "cultures") and who either did not realize very much or didn't care either which way.
As but one somewhat humorous example,
detailed by the venerable diplomat, historian and author, George
Kennan, the Arabic-speaking countries share a consensus reality
conceptualized around the idea (referred to by the nomenclature
bit "Kismet") that the future is in the hands and determination
of Allah, and that mere humans shall not mess around by trying
to shape the future to their own ends and designs.
Having attempted to comprehend the concept
of Kismet the best I can, I am somewhat partial to it because
it does have some interesting and beneficial merits -- if one
tries to entertain the larger picture of things.
That aside, during a great part of this
century, the Western world, and especially the United States,
tended to view the Arabic nations as feudalistic -- which more
bluntly meant "backward."
Hence those nations were seen as potential consumers of modernization products, especially with regard to "building better futures" for themselves.
Transliterated, this means that Western
entrepreneurs foresaw the merits of causing the Arabs to purchase
implements, plans, designs, equipment, methods and whatnot under
the guise of building a better future -- a concept which the Western
entrepreneurs themselves place much faith and assuming foresight.
Also noted by the entrepreneurs, most of the Arabic nations had scads of money to effect such future-oriented improvements, for they had mucho fossil fuels the rest of the world was desperate for.
In this sense, the Arab nations were a bank of unused, but presumably accessible, money reserves.
The first wave of Western entrepreneurs,
their diplomats and representatives, appear to have been considerably
unaware of the existence of the concept of Kismet, and subsequent
waves of them thought that rational economic logic they themselves
pursued would put the concept somewhat into abeyance.
Now, I've no desire to get into the egregious
details of what thenceforth transpired within what then became
known as "world tensions" because of this "conflict"
of dramatically opposing consensus realities, or to discuss the
merits and demerits of either.
The issue here is the often unalterable STRENGTH and POWER of consensus realities as might be applied solely to the problems and situation of the superpower faculties -- given into creation either by God, Allah or the Ascending Evolutionary Steps.
The point here is that IF a consensus
reality is really locked into itself, it is then really hard to
deal with or even to get around it -- without also setting into
action a very dramatic paradigm shift.
Everyone utilizes the basic consensus realities they are part of, from the fundamental language-nomenclature foundations on upward to sophisticated versions of them.
And everyone utilizes these consensus realities because that is all they have to think and communicate with.
If you take a moment here to get the
idea of a funnel, for example, as an implement utilized to get
liquids into a narrow-topped bottle without spilling much, you
might grasp all this somewhat better.
Into the wide-open brim are poured the liquid elements of life and all its very many processes, and which liquid elements are narrowed down at the tight spout, and thence gotten into the bottle. If we can conceive of the bottle as a consensus reality, we can use bottles as handy metaphors.
But to complete the metaphor, we do realize
that consensus realities differ. And so we have to put a filter
somewhere in the funnel so that the elements and processes of
life are filtered into the bottles in only such and such a way.
Now, we can put a label on the bottle, using this or that linguistic nomenclature for purposes of common identification among those who utilize it for communicating.
And there you have it -- in a somewhat
weak metaphorical sense anyway: a prepackaged consensus reality,
and each society drinks from THEIR bottle, and causes others also
to drink from it. Naturally, all consensus realities think that
their bottle is the best one.
However, to comprehend what actually
is in the bottle, we have to pour out the contained liquid and
submit it to detailed analysis, molecule by molecule, atom by
atom, or concept by concept.
As it THEN would happen, we can find only what we already have concepts for and expectations of finding, since it is easiest to find what fits into the consensus realities we are utilizing to do so.
When we find something totally unexpected, well, as is said in the sciences, we are "surprised."
No consensus reality filter can completely filter out all aspects of life. Aspects of life inconvenient to the other contents of the bottle sometimes get through the filter -- especially if those aspects are indigenous to our species.
You see, each babe born is a container of life, and no one is ever born a prepackaged format of a given consensus reality bottle. THAT has to be installed or cloned into each specimen and always requires some kind of reductionism or another.
For its filters, each consensus reality
depends on its approved concepts -- with the result that if the
concepts are not truly compatible with aspects of life itself,
then it will filter only those aspects which the filters permit.
In this sense, then, the concepts that are incompatible with life
will achieve the function of information viruses which distort,
wreck or destroy the aspects of life itself.
And, regarding the "bottles" of predigested consensus realities, the chances are very good that upon analyses of them we will find information processing viruses -- this because the "digestion" of any kind of information always contributes the preconceived conceptual "juices" utilized to digest them.
It's a good thing the somewhat shaky
metaphors gotten up here are only for hypothetical purposes. So
"chill out" a little. You'll probably need to "chill"
a little in regard to what now follows.
ALERT! Here we have a topic that can be seized upon and used to beat up on others regarding their beliefs, the condition of their knowledge or expertise, and their supposed intelligence or stupidity if they have any of either.
The "best" people, of course, are those that are not thought of as being too extreme with regard to either their intelligence or stupidity, in which case they can be considered among the so-called "normal," or as "one of us." Each consensus reality establishes a so-called "normal" band used to determine deviation away from the fundamental concepts of the consensus reality itself.
Something now depends on which consensus
reality is being utilized as the "proper" one, and which
band in it is thought of as the "normal" one.
Then if one falls out of the up end or the down end of the "normal" curve, one is therefore considered too intelligent or too stupid to fit into it.
One of the situations relevant to this,
though, is that intelligence and stupidity cannot really be nailed
down unless there are "normative," consensus reality
standards to utilize in doing so.
For example, via the prevailing consensus
reality characteristic of the scientific discipline of physics
between 1905 until about 1927, Albert Einstein was bombarded with
vocal and PRINTED condemnations regarding his congenital stupidity
and similar invectives.
On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of those hailed as marvelously intelligent, thereafter proven quite stupid, and whose names usually end up getting vaporized in historical memory. I won't mention any names here, for fear of treading on someone's icons.
In any event, one is considered sane
(and rational and logical) if one fits snugly into a given normal
band of a consensus reality. And in this sense, one is a "proper"
exemplar not only of the consensus reality, but surely of our
species as well.
If one doesn't fit in, one is thought of as different, deranged or impaired, or challenged; as psychologically unbalanced, disturbed, or whose mind functions are resulting from some kind of pathological condition; or as marching to a different drummer -- for lo and behold there seem to be different drums to march to; or as needing help -- the BIG "help" economy to relocate into the normal band -- and on and on and on some more, up to and including being politically incorrect as well as out of fashion, a retard, a retro, fringey, perhaps nerdish, wacko, or NOC (not of our class, which applies equally to the wealthy and the poor, the latter, too, having its collective consensus reality frameworks).
However, if one develops a larger picture
of all this, it can be seen on the one hand that everyone WILL
fit into some kind of consensus reality somewhere; and that all
of us will NOT fit in to some kind of consensus reality somewhere
What one wants to do is find "my people" so as to fit oneself in with them -- and to avoid all those others which are "not my people."
However, in order to fit in anywhere,
one has to clone not only the concepts, but the concept viruses,
the two altogether being perpetuated as "reality."
At the brink of sermonizing a little,
we are all of the same species, a species which preoccupies itself
with setting up, or inventing or imagining, consensus realities
in the first place.
It seems possible that we could therefore modulate a species level consensus reality which would incorporate most specimens born.
But I digress too far, except to note that SHOULD such a species level consensus reality EVER "evolve," it would have to include admission of the existence of the superpower faculties.
The dimensions of existing knowledge
regarding the superpowers is not all that large, and what there
is of it is pretty much clogged with information processing viruses.
And so it is necessary to examine their nature, characteristics
and effects on human thinking processes.
The references to information processing viruses in this database refer specifically to the central topic of this database and to no other topic.
And to get good mileage out of this topic, it should be stated that one can profit only by taking interest in the possibility of one's OWN information processing viruses -- since those of others are irrelevant to one's own self-activation of the interlocking networks of superpower faculties.
The term VIRUS is generally thought to be a bit of biological nomenclature identifying "submicroscopic infective agents."
But the term is descended on the one hand from an ancient Sanskrit term, VISA, meaning "poison or venom in the senses," and on the other hand from the Greek term, IOS, meaning "poison."
Our English term is taken directly from
the Latin VIRUS, in which language it officially referred to slimy
liquid, poison or stench, but was also probably utilized as Latin
slang meaning something like "really smelly shit."
The third definition given in my trusty Webster's is "something that poisons the mind or soul."
It was apparently first utilized in English
in 1599 in the context of heaping venomous and poisonous abuse
on another person.
The earliest definition in terms of pathology date only from 1725 -- at which time it more or less referred to "A morbid principle or poisonous substance produced in the body as the result of some disease, especially one capable of being introduced into other persons or animals by inoculation or otherwise and of developing the same disease in them."
It is from this definition that I have adapted and adopted the term "cloning" with reference to exactly reproducing something in oneself taken or absorbed from others.
The term VIRUS has been seized from its
modern biological contexts and entered into Computerese. There
it refers to a nearly undetectable micro-package of information
which can be introduced into software programs and/or hardware
systems with the result of disorganizing, adulterating or obliterating
In its Computerese sense, a virus is
actually an information virus which distorts or erases other kinds
of information -- more or less along the same lines as the filters
in the funnels of consensus reality bottles.
Our English term, CLONE, was taken from the Greek word meaning "twig or slip." Its first noted use in English was in 1903 in a scientific paper having to do with chrysanthemums and their clonal characteristics.
A later scientific paper of the same year pointed up that "the clones of apples, pears, strawberries, etc., do not propagate true to seed, while this is one of the most important characteristics of races of wheat and corn."
In this sense, a cloned information processing concept or a clone's information processing virus may not propagate true to seed either.
In any event, the first definition of
CLONE dating from ancient Greece, etc., referred to a group of
cultivated plants the individuals of which are transplanted parts
of one original seedling or stock, the propagation having been
carried out by the use of grafts, cuttings, bulbs, etc.
In this sense, then, CLONE was the term given to all bud grafts taken from a parent tree.
This can be extended into the analogy
that a given consensus reality is the parent tree of conceptualizations,
and that each of us specimens can be grafted onto it. As we are,
After the tree is recognized, and communicated within, by the nomenclature central to the tree, not just the bark of the tree, but the flow of information inside the tree and which makes it a tree.
The bark of the tree constitutes only its superficial protective layers, three layers of quite simplified cells which harden -- something like the hard glass of the bottle that contains whatever is filtered into it.
All the above for whatever it might suggest.
It is not correct to call a concept an information virus simply because one disagrees with it.
For one thing, all of us completely assume that OUR concepts are correct and virus-free. And so if we enter into discriminating the existence of information viruses, we will normally assess the concepts of others -- not those we might just chance to contain.
The only purpose of entering this topic
into this database has to do with locating information processing
viruses within the general consensus reality we have cloned into
-- and must subscribe to in order to speak, write and read in
its unifying language.
Whether an individual or a group of them
possesses cloned information processing viruses is irrelevant
-- with one exception. And if you cannot identify that one exception,
then you are already reading this essay from a viewpoint not at
Finally, the ENTIRE context of this essay
is aimed only at the possibility that information processing viruses
exist and which might deter or prevent one's own approach toward
activating their own share of the superpower faculties. This is
a specific area of possible interest only for some, not a general
one applicable to all or any other area of human species activity.
In any event, we must move on.
If we search for the singly, largest common conceptual denominator regarding the superpowers, we will easily find that the concept of PERCEPTION is most likely to be it. This is specifically to say that in the English language, perception is assigned to all psychic matters.
This assigning is, of course, over-simplified to the extreme -- in that there are many different TYPES of perception in both the quantitative and qualitative sense.
But beneath that slight confusion is
another more fundamental one -- an almost universal mis-understanding
regarding what perception is and is all about.
And so in Part 3 now coming up, we will attempt to beat that misunderstanding to death -- and do so without overtly stipulating that this egregious misunderstanding is virus-like in nature.
(End of Part 2)