Chapters 1 - 4
Ingo Swann (8Aug05)


THIS essay is a slightly adjusted version of a Situational Paper prepared by this author at the request of two representatives of "interested parties," the identities of which, as well as the contents of the Paper, were not to be disclosed.  This author does not at all favor such mumbo-jumbo affairs cloaked in mystery if they come out of thin air.  But the initial go-between came through a dear friend of highest integrity and knowledge who referred, rather obliquely, to a sort of behind-the-scenes venture capital group interested in funding advanced directions in what was more or less referred to as "super-consciousness activities."

As it eventually turned out, to this author's surprise, and for reasons quite obscure, the unidentified group nonetheless urged open presentation of the Paper in this Website.

The central issue involved has to do with increasing interest in potential ways and means of superpower training.  As will be discussed in the text ahead, one doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to assume that this interest has undergone stimulation because of the recent discovery (during the 1990s) of "empathic mirror neurons" in the premotor cortex of the brain via which the "motives and intentions of others" can be detected.

Detecting the motives and intentions of others is also one of the formal definitions of that super sensitivity categorized as "telepathy," and the discovery of mirror neurons implies that empathic telepathy does exist, does have a physical explanation, even if only in "raw" potential.

The discovery furthermore means that searches for ways and means of developing the raw potential via applied training-enhancement methods will (if not already) seriously be undertaken by any number of "behind-the-scenes interested parties."

Situation Papers are often requested to help recognize missing elements of a missing bigger picture.


Ingo Swann


THIS AUTHOR has been requested to provide an in-depth Situation Paper concerning potential training of human superpowers such as those commonly referred to in the modern West as PSI or ESP faculties and which appellations include clairvoyance, telepathy, precognition, etc., and more lately collectively referred to as "superpowers."

The request does not principally ask for intimate discussion of the superpowers themselves, but rather for a consideration of them from the EXPERIENTIAL viewpoint within the human species in general. 

What this "experiential viewpoint" might consist of needs clarification here at the beginning.


For about 150 years now (roughly demarking the Late Modern Age circa 1920-1990), positive and negative interests in the superpowers have usually been built upon viewpoints more or less in keeping with various attitudes, opinions, ideas and concepts consistent with "old" philosophic-scientific theories and doctrines; and viewpoints that characterized various social groupings and their vested principles.

This complicated mélange fomented a Situation in which it hardly mattered what people actually experienced of their super sensitivities.  What mattered was how such experiencing fitted in with this or that mélange of "old" concepts.


Within this not insignificant modernist mélange, the probability that super sensitivities might have some kind of innate status in our species was avoided and became, as it were, a nebulous ring-pass-not kind of thing that hardly anyone officially dared look at much less challenge.

Innateness of a given phenomenon or activity in our species is first established by finding out how "universal" or "generic" it is throughout, or how often it actively manifests within the sum of human experiencing.

Thus, when some form of human activity is found occurring everywhere (i.e., including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively more or less without limit or exception), it can be surmised that it is inherently, generically, and innately existing – at least potentially so.

However, when the probable innateness of super sensitivities is avoided and shunted aside altogether, then data reflecting the sum of human super sensitivity experiencing is NOT likely to undergo anything resembling organized itemization – and certainly not in any societal-relevant philosophic or scientific contexts.


Since this cast-in-cement Situation has been ongoing for so long in modernist contexts reflecting powerful resistance to super sensitivities, it could easily be predicted that it would be projected, largely unchanged, into the decades ahead.

Suddenly, however, at about just after the turn of the millennium, one finds a sort of Embryonic Situation growing within the cement of the long ongoing one, one that carries a particular characteristic that needs to be emphasized.

To help distinguish between the "old" and emerging "new" approaches, one might find increasing interest in extending research of the super sensitivities based on traditional "old" psychical or parapsychological concepts and models.

But this is not the case at all with the emerging Situation, for the new interest is on seriously organized TRAINING of super sensitivity potentials – i.e., an interest that had hardly ever seen the light of day before in broad societal contexts.

Simply put, this aspect boldly jumps across mere super sensitivity research into a pursuit of applied super sensitivity activity – simply because hardly anything is trained unless it is meant to be used.


Before entering into discussions relative to the question of whether the super sensitivities can experientially be trained, there is the rather complicated Experiential Situation involving whether specimens of our species in general fundamentally experience super sensitivities in a more or less species-wide manner.

For example, it is quite well documented that instincts, gut-feelings, intuitions, and premonitions are experienced broadly, at least sufficiently enough to qualify as "universal" to our species.

These age-old and enduring phenomena are not generally thought of as examples of experiential super sensitivity – largely because modern parapsychologists could not figure out how to experientially drag them into the laboratory and empirically test them.

One of the subtle problems involved here is that the vast expansiveness of human experiencing has never quite fitted into empirical models - or, as it might better be put, fitted into empirical models that are usually structured upon limited contexts thought to be evidential and thus valid, but which do not allow for evidence outside their limited contexts.

Simply put, human experiencing that fits into empirical contexts is thought to be scientific; human experiencing that does not fit into such contexts is thought to be unscientific.  End of story.


At first sight, the difficulties discussed just above are usually thought to emerge out of flawed empirical concepts – which is at least partially the case.

But there is an additional facet involved that is seldom, if ever, considered.  You see, the contexts and phenomena of human EXPERIENCING are not very well understood, although it is taken for granted that they are.

So the overall Experiential Situation has to do with a couple of significant problems that subtly surround the term EXPERIENTIAL, and these need to be worked through before going on.  Please try to do so, and see if the subtle fallacies involved become apparent.

That term is of course taken from the word EXPERIENCE ehivh has at least eight definitions.

In general, it is first officially defined as "The (usually) conscious perception or apprehension of reality or of an external, bodily, or psychic event."  Please note the "usually conscious" element here.

The term is also narrowly defined as "The conscious events that make up an individual life."

Lastly, the term is vaguely defined as "Something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through."

EXPERIENTAL is defined as "Derived from, based on, or relating to experience – empirical" – i.e., usually conscious empirical experience.

The insertion into this definition of the term EMPIRICAL engenders subtle difficulties, because it has three somewhat conflicting definitions:  (1) Relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system or theory; (2) Originating in or based on observation or experience; and most importantly, (3) Capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

All of these definitions might seem okay at first.  But in seeking the definitions of EMPIRICAL, one finds that its major definition is rendered as "capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment."

In other words, it confines the EXPERIENTIAL to whatever is "capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment."  Please note that this particular definition is very meaningful in that EMPIRICAL (i.e., empiricism) was THE chief hallmark of the modernist sciences and philosophies.

This is to say that "something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through" must be submitted to empirical verification or disproving via empirical observation of experiment.

Bluntly put, this Empirical Situation involves WHOSE and WHAT experiment via what and whose attitudes, opinions, ideas; via what and whose philosophic and scientific theories or doctrines; and via what and whose adherence to various social groupings and their invested principles.

Thus, what is empirical to some may not be considered empirical by others, this being a very old story.  But within the ongoing mélange, specimens of our species experience what they do whether such is empirical or not.


It is worth noting that the contexts of both EXPERIENCE and the EXPERIENTIAL have traditionally been discussed  AFTER examples of them have manifested.

But both terms imply the existence of potentials that might, could, or can manifest whether they do or do not.

In other words, there probably exists a lot of experiential Stuff that might never enter into one's experiencing of it, or into empirical observation and experimentation of it.

Additionally, empirical observation and experimentation might NOT be capable of addressing Stuff outside of criteria being empirically utilized. 

Thus something, such as sudden emergence of super sensitivity experiencing formerly not experienced might take place, often in ways that objective, empirical realities cannot account for.



WONDERMENT about whether training of the superpowers is possible is made difficult because the question is entangled in numerous Situations some of which are quite subtle and not easily recognizable.

Most of these Situations are locked into old realities, some of which are fortunately in process of being replaced by new ones with staggering implications.  If this were not the case, then constructing this consultative document would be rather pointless, and boring as heck to boot.


One of the "old" Situations consists of two somewhat related parts, the first of which has to do with the question of whether or not parapsychology has failed in the sense that it once was an idea whose time had come, and thence, after a few exciting decades, declined and went leaving behind a confused residue.

Among this residue, parapsychology contexts and frames of reference still endure, even if now becoming slightly obsolete.  But if those contexts are not depended on or utilized then no one knows what is being talked about.
The best (and shortest) definition of Parapsychology is found in PARAPSYCHOLOGY: SOURCES OF INFORMATION published in 1973 wherein (on page 13) it is stated that "Parapsychology (the modern and more restrictive term for psychical research) is the field which uses the scientific method to investigate phenomena for which there appear to be no normal (that is, sensory) explanations.  Basically this refers [only] to phenomena subsumed under the general term psi . . . [that] refers to the building blocks of telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis."

The operative key of this definition is "the scientific method," one part of which involves utilizing the empirical statistical method to establish scientifically acceptable epistemological evidence of the real empirical existence of something, such as telepathy, etc.
The second part of this two-part Situation also involved "the scientific method," but as seen not from parapsychology hopes but from the empirical contexts of modernist Science itself – i.e., the empirical context resolutely marked by the firm conviction that nothing but Matter existed, and that unless a phenomenon could be explained as a result of identifiable material sources and process it could not be accepted as "scientific."

In other words, mere statistical evidence was Not Enough, even if obtained via strict empirical procedure.  So, in this sense, parapsychology failed in obtaining its ultimate goal of scientific acceptance.

But it is important to stipulate that overall it did not fail in its basic, cumulative statistical approach to researching PSI and its several manifestations among the human species.


However, as mentioned by others, it can justifiably be said in retrospect that the parapsychology approach to PSI was too narrow for any number of reasons, especially in that it did not, in general, incorporate fundamental study of such phenomena as perception, consciousness and its capacities, or the fuller spectrum of exceptional human experiencing – or the possibilities of TRAINING of anything.

At about 1970, parapsychology was already more or less moribund when this author inadvertently entered it as an experimental (and, at first, a somewhat abused) guinea pig.

Since then, Science has discovered that Matter is NOT the only reality, and that at least telepathy DOES have a physical basis – both of which ironic events are sardonically delicious to those who have strongly experienced some kind of super sensitivity.


One of the working definitions of the term SITUATION is given as "relative position or combination of circumstances at a certain moment, place, or time."

When this definition is connected to the topic of the super sensitivities, it simply signifies that concepts of the super sensitivities are seen as relative to various kinds of circumstances within which they are being considered pro or con.

Such relative circumstances can be cultural, social, individual and/or "group think," philosophic, or scientific, etc., and they also depend on what kinds of dominant intellectualisms are holding sway at any given moment, place, or time.

All of this makes for a massively complex and messy picture that writers, analysts, historians, etc., try to wade through - and usually end cognitively mired up to their brainpans.  More simply put, this simply means that there are very many conflictive INTELLECTUALISMS via which the superpowers and their associated super sensitivities can be viewed in various conflicting ways.


In order to TRY to cut through, or downsize, this complex and messy entanglement, this author will consider only two situational characteristics that are obviously involved.

The second of these might be styled as the DEEPER SITUATION, while the first can more precisely be referred to as the SUPERFICIAL SITUATION that is absolutely known to exist - if only because of the vast abundance of popular books, theories, guesstimates, etc., that "say" what they do pro or con, but don't provide all that much depth into the essential, fundamental nature of the superpowers.

A very long paper could be written dissecting this superficial situation, but it seems the better part of valor to suggest why it exists in the first place, and exists in such a continuing manner.
You see that term INTELLECTUAL-ISM just above?  Let us start dissecting that.

The INTELLECTUAL part seems okay, in that the term is defined as "of or relating to the intellect or its use" - although what use is made of intellect is sometimes to be wondered about.

Depth diving into this particular issue, it can be found that the definition of the ISM part is given as "doctrine, theory; adherence to a system, doctrine, or theory identified by the particular class of principles incorporated into them."
DOCTRINE is merely defined as "something that can be taught [including its ‘principles'], while THEORY consists of "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation based on analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another."

However, a more perceptive actuality is this:  until they are proven factual, such theories, doctrines, principles, isms, etc. don't always need to incorporate facts – and especially cannot really do so if important facts are intellectually unknown within the sometimes fact-less principles incorporated into them.

If and when important hitherto unknown facts come to light (if they are allowed to do so, or can't otherwise be prevented or resisted}, then former principles, theories, doctrines, isms, begin to dis-incorporate – or, as it might better be said, "become undone, to come apart."

Anything that is in process of dis-incorporating quickly sheds its former vogue and fashionable allure.  And pundits will begin pointing up that such were composed only of mere and sometimes stupid intellectualisms all along.


In the sense of the above observations, it can be wondered if both modern Parapsychology and modern Science treated the superpowers in superficial ways.
In the case of modernist Science the answer is in the absolute positive, because the superpowers were simply (and officially) dismissed via ways and methods overall characterized by one of the most dogmatic forms of crass superficiality.
In the case of modernist Parapsychology, it could be thought that its empirical/statistical searches might not constitute a superficiality – until it is realized that most (but not all) of such searches were more politically motivated toward gaining scientific acceptance (and hence more funding) rather than by more profound depth-diving into the PSI phenomena being considered.

 So, both parapsychology AND empirical science missed two of the most important and enduring facts of the superpowers, two facts that have long stood the tests of time – whereas parapsychology came and went, and the ever-so-neat-packaged materialistic Science is now in the process of going, too.


The two tests-of-time FACTS relative to the superpowers are:

(1) That their reality existence within our species has been noted in all cultures from time immemorial; and

(2) That their manifestations erupt spontaneously even within populations otherwise shackled by various types of negative attitudes against them.

In other words, while negative intellectualisms, theories, doctrines, etc. might come and go, super sensitivity phenomena have a much longer and deeper history – and it is these two tests-or-time facts that principally constitute the DEEPER SITUATION as contrasted to the more familiar Superficial ones.

All of the foregoing having been joyfully pointed up, we can now move into the post-Modern arenas of super sensitivity recognition – and why attempts at training will certainly be future-forthcoming.


AS ALREADY briefly discussed, the parapsychology goal of achieving scientific acceptance based on empirical statistical data was successfully resisted on the grounds that PSI phenomena could not additionally be explained as the empirical result of empirical material processes.  Mere statistical data alone were not completely scientific of and in themselves.

This scientific resistance was completely logical IF matter WAS the Only Reality – meaning that nothing else other than Matter could exist or co-exist with it.

So, from the scientific viewpoint, it was generally thought that parapsychology research was in scientific default by failing to provide direct physical evidence for the existence of PSI items such as telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.

The idea that the modern scientific theory-doctrine holding that Matter was the Only Reality could, itself, be in default was unthinkable.


To segue into the possible confusions that are to follow, the term STUFF is usually considered as having very low philosophic-scientific dignity and even lesser merit.

Among its several definitions in addition to "rubbish," one can discover that the term refers to:  (1) fundamental material, substance, or essence; (2) the aggregate of something;  (3) special knowledge or capability.

The contexts of these three definitions, however, usually refer to Stuff that is more of less known to exist if only in a theoretical manner, even though few if any details of what is involved are clear.

As a case in point, advancing sciences (IF they ARE advancing) tend to discover Stuff that can't be explained within the contexts they are advancing out of.  Philosophies are also reluctant to have advancing Stuff discovered - because such discoveries would entail bothersome rewriting of the philosophies.

As a general rule of thumb, scientists and philosophers usually don't appreciate discovery of the real existence of Stuff that is outside or beyond the reality boxes they don't want to advance out of, probably because of the dreaded loss of face that would be involved.


As of about 1890, scientific investigations of Matter were doing quite well – until unanticipated Situations began entering into the Only Reality when the cutting edges of physics began dissecting Matter into smaller and smaller particles, and, as a result, eventually encountered Stuff (during the early 1920s), which was dubbed as the sub-atomic quantum realms.

Quantum theory thence yielded the advanced, cutting-edge concepts of non-continuity, non-causality, and non-locality.  The details of these concepts are too involved to include here, and if interested, one can bone up on them via Internet resources.

But briefly put here, quantum theory began establishing that Matter was actually coinciding and interfacing within conditions of some Other Realities Stuff that could neither be measured nor understood by empirical scientific measuring and testing in ways consistent with the Only Reality of Matter.

Perhaps too simply put, the Other Realities consisted of "radiations" emerging, in the strict material sense, from "no-material-thing," but which were anyway interpenetrating the Only Reality of Matter.

Did you "get" all of this?  If not, don't worry too much because there is worse to come, but which, even if worse, is a bit more understandable.


To jump a bit ahead from earlier beginnings of quantum mechanics and theory, during the 1980s and 1990s, the "cutting edges" of physics found themselves capable of mathematically deducing the real existence of Stuff dubbed as dark matter, exotic matter, dark energy, multiple dimensions, and multiple universes.

As all of this stands so far:

DARK MATTER may or may not interpenetrate the

physical realms; but

EXOTIC (SUBTLE) ENERGIES interpenetrate; while

DARK ENERGY certainly does interpenetrate;

As well as do MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS that simultaneously

co-exist with and interpenetrate within each other.

One of the outcomes of all these "Other Realities" (including PARALLEL UNIVERSES and the HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE), is that the former "only reality" of Matter now is thought to constitute only about some 4 percent to 7 percent of the Universe. 

(NOTE:  Those interested in these items are invited to check the appropriate Internet sources.  Google It, as it is said.)

For an attempt at clarifying, practically everyone comprehends what is meant by PENETRATE, an English word officially defined as:  "To pass into or through; to see into or through; to discover the inner contents or meaning of; to pass, extend, pierce, or diffuse into or through something."

At a lower, more gross level of understanding, the term is understood as merely shoving something into something else – and/or gaining access to something that is thought to be shielded against access, such as secrets, motives, intentions, and other hidden or concealed whatnots, etc.

That much having been said, there is another English term that is less understood – INTER-PENETRATE, defined as:  "To penetrate between, within, or throughout; to mutually penetrate; to spread or diffuse through; to permeate."

The conventional modernist definitions, functions, and activities of PENETRATION are quite well comprehended, largely because concrete demonstrations of them are rife everywhere.

However, although the term INTERPENETRATION is occasionally used, there is always the elusive issue of what is mutually interpenetrating what – especially if such cannot strictly be explained as the result of material processes.

What all of this interpenetrating scientific STUFF means with respect to super sensitivities is by no means clear.  But many super sensitive individuals have referred to perceiving "radiations," other dimensions, multiple realities, and all kinds of information not available via the five physical senses.

But a sort of parallelism is implied between the existence of interpenetrating Stuff and, let us say, interpenetrating capacities of human consciousness whose functions are not strictly confined to objective perception of the matter-only reality.


Enlarging upon this a little, as far as the objective physical universe of Matter is concerned (and in the modernist rational sense of it), that universe is generally assumed to be composed of physically objective things that might penetrate other things, but which don't mutually interpenetrate, and thus do not mutually co-exist with and within each other.

THIS context is the central reality of the modernist Western philosophies and sciences. Or, as it might better be put today, it WAS the central reality in the conventional modernist West.

The modernist philosophy of Materialism held that Matter was the Only Reality.  End of story.

The modernist sciences followed suit, additionally holding that anything that could not be explained as a manifestation or resulting processes of Matter could not have real existence.

It is quite easy to understand the utter allure of this, in that we do exist in our local section of the material universe and have, by necessity, to grapple with its local vicissitudes all of the time – THIS even before we have to grapple with the more complex vicissitudes of human nature.
There are lots of old stories about this state of material affairs, but there is one somewhat complicated aspect that has seldom undergone examination and discussion.

Briefly put:  The Matter universe is filled with OBJECTS, i.e., things "that are capable of being seen, touched, or sensed via the physical senses" and/or via physical equipment designed and engineered to do so.

These objects are LOCAL to and within the Matter universe, meaning they are "characterized by or relating to position in space; characterized by, relating to, or occupying a particular place" in that universe.

Such "position(s) in space" and "particular place(s)" are of course OUTSIDE of US, and they all locally "belong" to what and where they are at any given time.

Hence the term OBJECTIVISM, defined as "Any of the various theories [including philosophic and scientific ones] stressing objective reality, especially as distinguished from subjective experience or appearance."

Now, in these particular objectivistic contexts, it is quite easy to comprehend that the first level of conscious-of-ness development simply has to focus, or centralize, on external objects external that exist in their local positions in space and in their particular places.

It is generally thought that THIS is achieved via the five physical senses, and by tutoring and training them to function at least somewhat properly and efficiently within the contexts of objectivity as found among the vicissitudes and hazards of the Only Reality of Matter.
(As a brief aside here, please note that this kind of training does not include efficiency training for dealing with the vicissitudes and hazards of human nature itself for which other kinds of "senses" are certainly required in addition to the famous physical five ones.)

For reasons that have never exactly been objectively explained, it is taken for granted, in objective materialistic contexts, that all of the objects in the local universe of Matter do not violate the local "laws" that are assumed to govern the local objective existence of matter, energy, space, and time.

Therefore anything that does so cannot be explained – at least in objective terms.

So a rather pregnant question can emerge from all of this:  Why does human consciousness seem to have capacities that dare to violate the local "laws" of objective existence?


To remind:  The term SUPERPOWERS refers:
(1) to any sensitivities that cannot be attributed to the five physical senses;
(2) to any sensitivities that transcend whatever is passing for conscious reason and logic based only on the restrictions of material objectivity;
(3) to any sensitivities that transcend the materialistic understanding of matter, energy, space, and time; and
(4) to the acquisition of efficient information that can, if well trained to do so, result from such transcending.

Also to remind:  The term itself is not original to this author or to this Website, having, as it does, a rather long history in other languages.  The prefix SUPER (and its many linguistic equivalents) merely denotes "over and above; higher in quantity, quality, or degree than; exceeding or so as to exceed a norm; surpassing all or most others of its kind."


The key concept in all of the foregoing is INTERPENETRATE.  This is a point to be emphasized for several reasons.

One can easily think or speculate about the existence of other realities, realms, dimensions, and so forth.  But there is a general tendency to think of them as being outside of, elsewhere, and as having their own versions of objectivity independent and separate within the realms, dimensions, etc., of our material realities.
The difficult problem here is that although other realities, etc., probably do have their own objectivity versions within them, our own scientific quantum and sub-quantum discoveries are indicating that they are NOT ELSEWHERE.

Instead, they are mutually enfolded and interpenetrating each other and thus are simultaneously HERE, simultaneously co-existing at sub-quantum levels (including co-existing with our own material realities), and, as one might suppose, doing their own thing whatever that might be.

All of this is quite "alien" to our standard Western ways of thinking about reality, because they are more less firmly locked into the physical objectivity of things that can be perceived via the five physical senses, even if it takes microscopes, telescopes, and all other sorts of technical mechanisms to do so.

Indeed and on average, our consciousness is more or less programmed to function only with what is objective in this or that material sense, and which can objectively be "explained." Thus, when some sort of spontaneous super sensitivity experience takes place, everyone is befuddled, including the experiencer.
The foregoing is probably too amazing to take on board, so don't worry too much about it.  It takes time to digest this kind of STUFF.

The larger point being made is that INTERPENETRATION with and of Other Realities is now a big deal, at least at quantum scientific levels.  Mainstream science magazines are full of it, even including the venerable SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN whose earlier editors carefully clung to objective-empirical precepts acceptable to scientific materialism.


If advanced interpenetration-realities are alien and absolutely too amazing, it is likewise even more astonishing to find that something like such has been known for a long time – but objected to by modernist materialism, thus rejected and ejected from the arenas of material objective-thinking-only.

As already mentioned, this is revealed by searching other languages for relevant word-references, a good many of which are found, for example, in Amerindian languages that are redolent with such.

But it is astonishing to find that ancient Sanskrit . . . Well, let us start over here.

Sanskrit has, of course, its share of terms dealing with objective, material things, including actions and interactions within the realms of Matter.

But these material references are far overshadowed by the proliferation of terms relevant to Other Reality interpenetrations of all sorts, and the sum of which has long ago been encoded on behalf of possible and probable innate states of consciousness that can and do deal with them.

This is to say that while our extraordinary present scientific approaches to interpenetration Stuff have now been unavoidably underway for about twenty years, there was a language dating back 3,000 or more years ago that had its own versions of such Stuff.

This is not at all to say that the contexts of our own post-modern quantum discoveries are the same thing as are (or were) the ancient Sanskrit Other Realities thing.  But the Sanskrit contexts do identify what we today refer to as "mutually interpenetrating quantum and sub-quantum levels."

Thus, there is at least one somewhat discrete concept that the two contexts do share, if only recently so – i.e., the actual existence of multiple interpenetrating realities.

The Sanskrit contexts insist that human consciousness is possessed of ways and means to interact with multiple interpenetrating realities.  Our post-modern quantum sciences seem to be lagging a bit behind in this.

It is also worth mentioning that it should be obvious that super sensitivities are principally distinguished by their interpenetrating nature – which is to say, to interpenetrate Stuff and things that the mere five physical senses cannot.  More discussion on this later.  We now need to move onward.


AS ALREADY pointed up, it was held within modern materialist philosophies and sciences that parapsychology research was in default by failing to provide direct physical evidence for the existence of PSI items such as telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.

Put another, perhaps more significant way, science itself had not discovered any such kinds of physical evidence that could have aided parapsychology's work – and so parapsychological data could be excluded from scientific appreciation of it.

This exclusion was especially focused on super sensitivities which, after all, transcended the "laws" that were thought to govern matter, energy, space, and time, including the electromagnetic, chemical, and quantum arrangements within them.  And it was thought to constitute a necessary, neat, tight, and seamless example of pure scientific reason and logic based in confidence that nothing of the kind would ever be discovered.

As a result, the exclusion has been socially enforced in rather serious unforgiving ways, while proponents of the super sensitivities, no matter their standing otherwise, have been socially stigmatized, at least in the sense of mainstream acceptability.


And yet, as already discussed, by the beginning of the twenty-first century, mainstream science periodicals (such as the venerable SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and the data-crunching NEW SCIENTIST) were bristling with reports about Parallel Universes, Multiple Dimensions, Holographic Universes, the mysteries of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Subtle Energies, and Exotic Stuff.

But before the twentieth century was over, a new kind of mind-boggling discovery had been made during its ultimate decade.

While dark matter and energy etc. might not yet mean too much on average to mere individuals plodding along in their local "universes," this new discovery, once its ramifications begin to sink in, IS particularly significant at the individual level.


Now, perhaps to over emphasize, it was held that telepathy did not exist because:
(1) There wee no brain-mind mechanisms that could account for direct, mental mind-to-mind exchanges of information especially of the long-distance kind; and
(2) There was no known physical medium through which the mental information could directly be transmitted – since in the matter-only-reality universe, there was no non-matter Stuff simply because no other realities existed.

Such WAS the scientific situation.


An expanded version of what will now briefly be outlined below can be found in this Website under the heading of TELEPATHY – THE OPENING UP OF, and those interested are invited to surf the Internet under the topics of TELEPATHY and MIRROR NEURONS.

In the April 30, 2005 issue of SCIENCE NEWS (Vol. 167, No. 18), their appeared a brief article entitled "Goal Oriented Brain Cells – Neurons may track action as a prelude to empathy."

This somewhat obtuse heading was then clarified as:  "Neuroscientists in Italy listened in on monkeys' brain cells that they say may lie at the root of empathy, the ability to discern others' thoughts and intentions."

The scientific name given to these special brain cells was MIRROR NEURONS (possibly because they "reflected" what was going on in the neurons of others.)

Mirror neurons were first discovered in Macaque monkeys and later confirmed by MRI scanning also to exist in humans where they are located in Brodmann's area 44 (Broca's area) of the brain's cerebral cortex and elsewhere.

Mirror neurons are now scientifically defined as specializing neurons that (detect? respond to?) the "intentions and motives of others."

"Detecting intentions and motives of others" is, of course, the official, long-standing definition of TELEPATHY – and some scientists have noted (in print) that such neurons actually seem to place one in the minds of others, or, at least "mirror" what is going on in others' minds.

Among others, a neuroscientist scientist (at the University of California) indicated that via the special premotor cortex neurons "we are practically in another person's mind."


At this juncture, it is again worth reminding that in this Website, SUPERPOWERS more or less refers to any perceptual processes that range beyond the limited powers of the conventional five physical senses that "sense" physicality  – which is to say that super sensitivity perceptive processes transcend such limits.

"Telepathy" is a modern term that has been assigned to one such

superpower, although the processes involved were earlier referred to as "thought transference," a definition that is much in keeping with the new scientific definition of "mirror neurons."

As it is, the results of "thought transferring" and "thought mirroring" seem, if not identical, at least quite similar.  Telepathic super sensitivities can easily be thought of as a superpower, in that thoughts of others are not exactly comprised of any identifiable physicality – and hence are not sensed by the usual physical five.

At this point, it would be de rigueur to provide reference sources that attest to the actual scientific existence of mirror neurons.  But by now there many of such sources available in the Internet under the subject of mirror neurons.  Rather than list them here, interested readers are now referred to that greater electronic source.

However, one such source is pointed up here, principally because it contains a long list of references.  So, See: Gallese, Vittorio, "Action, goals, and their role in intersubjectivity:  from mirror neurons to the ‘shared manifold' hypothesis" (


Before the recent discovery of mirror neurons in the brain, it was scientifically thought, in crass materialistic terms, that telepathy could not exist because there was no physical explanation for it.  So, the discovery came not only as quite a surprise, but also engendered a number of ancillary questions.

One such question (not yet very openly being discussed, but nonetheless quietly circulating here and there) consists of the following wonderment:

WELL, if telepathic neurons exist, do similar kinds of them also exist for, say, remote viewing, for various forms of clairvoyance, for various kinds of intuitions, for premonition-sensing of future events, and etc?

Since it is generally realized that motor cortex functions and responses CAN be trained, well, you see, this wonderment is now beginning to represent a VERY seriously sensitive one for any number of reasons.


Because of the recent discovery of mirror neurons in the premotor cortex of the brain and elsewhere in the biobody, interest has been stimulated behind the public scenes as to whether some kind of training might be possible so as to enhance and achieve higher performance efficiency of their functions.

This developmental interest is probably not so much inspired by the mere existence of such neurons, but more by the possibility that if "we don't try to develop them, others are sure to do so."  Right?

So, you see, telepathy under any other name IS here to stay – if not in the general public per se, but certainly in the worldwide espionage games.  Ironic, isn't it, that a cutting edge of science itself should discover the physical existence of little gray cells that substantiate the actual existence of something on which science itself expended much debunking.


Now, it must be pointed out that theoretical enhancing of mirror neuron efficiency begs the question of whether ANY super sensitivity can be enhanced.   The only way we can judge this is by the actual substantiated RESULTS of such enhancement.

ENHANCEMENT, by the way, is defined as:  "to raise; to make greater; to heighten; to intensify."

NOTE:  As this document was in preparation, in its Science Times section of Tuesday, January 10, 2006, the very venerable NEW YORK TIMES featured a lengthy article entitled "Cells That Read Minds."  The lead observation:  "Scientists plumb the secrets of mirror neurons, which allow the brain to perform its highest tasks – learning, imitating, empathizing.  One mystery remains:  What makes them so smart?"

The "telepathic" issue was not enlarged upon all that much, but just about everyone realizes what "Cells that can read minds" means.