less than telepathy

By: Glenn Wheaton

The term telepathy was coined in 1882 by the classical scholar Frederic W. H. Myers, a founder of the Society for Psychical Research, and has remained more popular than the earlier expression of thought-transference. While the word telepathy seems to have a definition in virtually every dictionary it basically boils down to distant or remote perception. As it is referenced in Wikipedia…  Telepathy is the purported transmission of information from one person to another without using any of our known sensory channels or physical interaction.

Of interest here is that telepathy is not considered to be coherent with concepts of materialism or physicalism. That leaves telepathy to be a sense unique and native to consciousness itself. It implies that lacking access to the 5 senses that consciousness can still communicate these types of data to the mind.

Telepathy is actually exceedingly difficult to prove and as of this writing science has done some work in validating brain to brain communication potential, but nothing that would be even close to a replication of what we believe telepathy to be. Researchers at the University of Barcelona published “Conscious Brain-to-Brain Communication in Humans Using Non-Invasive Technologies” where they illustrate a very clever way to establish a basic brain to brain communications link across thousands of miles. The data communicated is very simplistic but makes a case that will surely spawn further research.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105225

I would offer that the term telepathy is perhaps a bit more fluid than is understood from the definition above and not quite as exact as the definition implies.

Very often in the remote viewing community the specter of telepathy is bandied about as causation in some twist or befuddlement dealing with remote viewing activities or data, most familiar would be telepathic overlay. There are some that believe that remote viewing is virtually a complete telepathic process, while others, including myself, hold the opinion that telepathy, in a pure sense, is a rare occurrence in remote viewing.

Perhaps the most unasked question regarding telepathy is does the telepathic process require data to move between the participants? If data does move, what is the medium it must traverse? We simplify our understanding of how something is sent and received by stating “it is outside of space and time”. I will admit that some many years ago I too believed that it was an occurrence outside of space and time. What I believe now is quite a bit more complex. I believe that consciousness, space, and time, share the same fabric and exists in electromagnetic fields and mass, both above, and below, a quantum threshold. For the mind to traverse such an environment requires only the time for one to think a thought. There is nothing to suggest or establish that consciousness is subject to the Inverse-square law.  

In one sense telepathy would seem to require a transmission of information or it will not be able to be received. The questions begin to pile up from there. Does the person who transmits the information know that they are transmitting the data? Does the receiver of the information realize the source of the information they have received? In the communication world what is implied by telepathy is a communication link of a full-duplex state.

Would a half-duplex state where one only transmits some information that is never received be considered telepathy? Or another half-duplex state where a receiver gets information from a source without the knowledge of the person possessing the information? Are these circumstances telepathy? Or are they in fact less than telepathy.

The pure telepathic state would be a sender in mind-to-mind contact (full-duplex) with a receiver, who in turn can send as well. In truth pure telepathy is a conversation. As such in the remote viewing world we would virtually never experience a telepathic event such as this.

It is here where I would offer that in our world of remote viewing, events that are less than telepathy can ingress on our work.

The logic of something that is definable implies stability of definition. Let us consider simple combustion factors that lead to the creation of a flame. The flame is the culmination of the definable state of fire. We know that in the build up to combustion that there certainly is less than fire. It would seem to be the way of things that there certainly exists states that are less than telepathy that are unknown but still carry data but never culminate into the definable telepathic state. I am certain that many viewers are haunted by less than telepathy events that are very difficult to clarify in the remote viewing effort. What is one to think about the origins of information that seems to come to us as we endeavor to remote view?

In reality it is the mind that wields the power of perception. The mind is the machine behind the curtain pulling the levers to clarify cognition or to initiate the sparks to engage the remote viewing engine. Intent establishes the basic map for the mind as it orients itself to the task presented it. When we present our mind with an intent or need for information that is beyond time and space, perhaps the mind can reach beyond those barriers to collect the data or perhaps the mind doesn’t need too.  I presume acquiring the data to be a displacement of cognition, and for that limited time of the displacement, the viewer embraces a duplicity of awareness, perceiving the state of the remote location within the level of awareness they can solidify as well as the constant perception of their individual state. While these efforts mimic a possible telepathy with oneself, it is still less than telepathy.

Many in our community believe that telepathy plays a part in the remote viewing process. There are considerations for Telepathic Overlay in some methods of remote viewing. I would ask if those considerations meet the definition of telepathy or something less than telepathy. When we examine the possible sources for a viewer to gain information about a target other than the target itself it can get very messy.

At Hrvg we believe the remote viewer is indeed very resourceful. A viewer armed with a modicum of less than telepathic skills could get target data from any number of sources that could include but are not limited to the tasker, the person administering the target, the analyst, or themselves or others from a future posture of knowledge. We hold that responsibility for the collection of target data lies solely with the viewer in contact with the specified target. An instructor administering a target to a class of remote viewing students could indeed be low hanging fruit as a shortcut to the process by a wily student with a few less than telepathic skills. They could simply use a bit of intuition regarding the nature of the target. Is intuition telepathy or is it something less than telepathy? If it is not telepathy it is certainly “less than telepathic” like.

I want to make the point here that the mind has many doors that it traverses beyond ourselves and we know almost nothing about what capabilities are truly employed. Does the psychic know how they know something? In my discussions with Richard Ireland he described how he was able to know something by merely wanting to know it. Richard immediately challenged me by saying “my last name is Ireland, but am I Irish”? I looked at him and said, “no you are French”. He then asked me how I knew that. I honestly had no ethnic information regarding him but because of his name I had presumed that he was Irish. When he asked me, I asked the question in my mind and a single thought emerged. The thought wasn’t a word or an idea about French or France, it was an image of a Fleur-de-lis. The image was fleeting but recognizable. Richard shared that thinking in images gave him so many answers to questions people ask him. Is this telepathy? I really do not think it is, I think it is something less than telepathy but likewise it was something less than remote viewing. Whenever I can I always encourage viewers to practice thinking in pictures and images.

I mentioned above about how things can get a bit messy when viewers have less than clarity in focusing their intent in regards to a target. There is a seldom used word in the remote viewing community. That word is metaphor. Depending on how critical one is in their thinking processes, the data bubbling up to the viewer’s awareness can, and mostly likely will, be smoothed as we strain for recognition. If enough data for clarity is not present, we will build what we can from what we have. We will do it in an instant. A cloud will become a cotton ball and an ant becomes a weird alien head. All this as we seek to simply recognize what the thoughts in our mind are. We assimilate, and then simulate for recognition. Metaphor becomes part and parcel to the finished product.

Telepathy is a smear in consciousness, a gradient wave from fuzz to its apex in clarity. Telepathy surfaces in our awareness in particles and waves dressed by conscious metaphor. It is the way of it.