CAN THE SUPERPOWERS BE TRAINED?
Chapters 12 - 16
Ingo Swann (8Aug05)
12. A SITUATIONAL "MISSING LINK" IN COMPREHENDING THE REAL EXISTENCE OF SUPER SENSITIVITIES
THE IMPORTANT Situational question referred to above might be phrased as follows: How in any given time period do specimens of the human species begin to become aware of the existence of super sensitivities in addition to their physical, mundane, objective ones?
Having searched high and low for about five decades, this author has not been able to discover any source in which this significant question has been discussed or even mentioned.
So, in the absence of any supportive source, it seems the better part of valor is simply to TRY to initiate the required discussion - even if more or less hypothetically.
It seems that reasonably conscious people become aware of what they experience – in that if they don't become consciously aware then they can't claim to have experienced anything.
Of course, one can become intellectually aware of the existence of something without having actually experienced it. Thus, one can become intellectually aware of the existence of super sensitivities without actually having experienced any of them.
Thus, we might think in terms of prime actual self-experiencing of the real thing, so to speak, and secondary intellectual experiencing via what one has been able to hear or read about. In other words, prime actual experiencing is not the same as secondary intellectual experiencing – and, for that matter, never has been and never will be.
In order to get the meat of this across, it is necessary to pick a particular poignant example of prime actual experiencing and discuss it in some detail – an example that has a tremendously long tradition even in antiquity, and examples of which are still happening today.
For example, one is contentedly walking along a narrow mountain path admiring the surrounding scenic wonders. One's physical body suddenly stops walking, the legs take a few steps backward. There has been no cognitive volitional decision to do this – one wonders why - if one has time to do so - because
Without any perceptible hint of forewarning, the path ahead immediately falls away in a thunderous landslide.
Legs now quivering, one cautiously creeps forward, and, with some elevated degree of mind-numbing amazement, peers over the edge and objectively views where one's mangled body would objectively have been.
Then, as soon as one can reach the mountain lodge, one consumes at least three martinis while breathing heavily.
Tales of this spontaneous, unpremeditated, unpredicted event are then incredulously told, retold, and often recorded, even including the involuntary stopping and the involuntary backward stepping that no one can understand the what, why, or how of.
Prime experiencing, right? And of a type that has a very long history, especially in situations when this type was useful and needed.
Let us now TRY to consider what was basically necessary for this to happen.
First of all, one's volitional cognitive awareness factors seem clearly not to have been involved.
So it was, shall we say, some other sensing-detecting system perceived that the path, cliff, and mountainside were going to collapse a few seconds ahead in time.
To this other sensing-detecting system, the few seconds ahead in time represented calamitous DANGER.
This other sensing-detecting system perceived that there was not time to try to trigger even a slightly awareness premonition into the cognitive activities happily in charge of moving forward while enjoying the scenery.
So, this other sensing-detecting system simply commandeered the physical brain's motor cortex which then stopped the volitional walking and executed the involuntary backward stepping – all in a day's work, perhaps. After which the astonished volitional cognitive systems needed the three martinis, and perhaps six more.
Archaic peoples and the ancients that followed them probably did not know of the existence of the motor cortex.
But when it came to prime experiencing such things, they probably had the cognitive powers to recognize the difference between events like this and the more limited physical objective senses that do not transcend time even a few seconds ahead during which extreme dangers can come out of nowhere.
You see, this kind of prime experiencing saved lives, whereas the mere physical objective senses might not likewise be as dependable.
This author has met hundreds and hundreds of people who have experienced exactly something like this, and lived to talk about it.
Yet, no parapsychological term has been assigned to it. The only official documentation for it consists of interviewing those who have undergone different kinds of such prime experiencing.
When it is necessary to refer to it via a word, the term INSTINCT is usually seized upon.
But "instinct" has not officially been accepted as a super sensitivity parapsychology construct, because it is not seen as having any "Para" implications.
You see, INSTINCT is simply defined as "a complex and specific response of an organism to environmental stimuli that is largely hereditary and unalterable, does not involve reason, and has as its goal the removal of somatic tension" - such as, presumably, somatic tensions arising because of sensing danger present or ahead.
Sensing such most certainly will result in somatic tensions.
Well, who is to say that instincts do not involve their own kinds of reason? And who is to say that prime super sensitivity experiencing is NOT the result of some kind of reasoning, a kind of reasoning that can act independently of whatever is passing for mere intellectual reasoning?
And who is to say that the brain's motor cortex itself does not have its own versions of reason?
We thus arrive at considerations of the "missing link" which, it is thought, with respect to super sensitivities – i.e., the brain's motor cortexes are entirely responsible for any and all motions of the organism, even the motions of thought processes no matter what they consist of, including all information transfer systems.
13. THE DOUBLE SITUATION OF (1) SOCIAL DESENTIZING OF SUPER SENSITIVITY INFORMATION TRANSFERS, AND (2) THE ABSENCE OF AWARENESS 101
IN THAT INSTINCT "does not involve reason," it could not be thought of belonging to PSYCHOLOGY generally defined as "the study of mind, mental or behavioral characteristics in general, and the study of mind and behavior associated with particular types of reason."
Even so, if instinct does not involve reason, it can be wondered how it could detect and reasonably recognize forthcoming danger a few moments into the future.
In the same sense, it is can easily be observed that psychological reason is somewhat infamous for failing to detect danger in the here and now, just ahead, or farther ahead into the future.
In any event, INSTINCT was not included in the lexicon of parapsychology studies because it was thought not to involve reason, while certain super sensitivities thought to involve psychological reason were included – such as telepathy, clairvoyance, premonitions, etc., which were assumed to consist of extraordinary reasoning functions of mind and its mental processes.
Do note that REASON is defined as: "mental computation; to calculate, to think; the power of comprehending or inferring especially in orderly rational ways; the sum of intellectual powers." Yes, indeed.
As earlier discussed in section 2 entitled "Some Old Situations," super sensitivities have a longish history of not being socially wanted or approved.
One basic reason for this is that most societal groups function on shared average, normal, or mundane sensitivities usually of the objective kind. Thus, it would be quite obvious that efficient super sensitivities might give numerous advantages in those types of social contexts within which access to such advantages are prized and jealously guarded.
After all, efficient mind reading and predictive foreseeing would obviously muck up any number of mundane or secretive goals, plans, plots, machinations, etc., while even halfway efficient instinct, gut-feelings, intuition, inspired deduction, or even a smattering of wisdom would also be problematical.
It is thus that societies might become somewhat or even very intolerant of attempts to broadly enhance super sensitivity functioning, even though spontaneous eruptions of them occur among its general populations.
Since it is difficult to prevent such kinds of spontaneous eruptions, about the only general way of containing, so to speak, the issues involved is to envelope within social ways and means for discrediting, discouraging, and desensitizing awareness interest in them.
Nothing about the various kinds of super sensitivities is really real to individuals unless they first self-experience and attain awareness of their existence, the type of awareness that invokes experiencing that results in becoming conscious of whatever is involved.
This is to suggest that conscious experience of something is first preceded by some kind of subtle-to-stronger awareness, and also to suggest that if such awareness does not take place, then nothing happens, and no one is any the wiser – excepting the known fact that super sensitive phenomena often appear in dream, hypnotic, altered states, and spontaneous super sensitive events.
In most societal collectives and their systems, and according to their stabilizing and principles and other social control whatnots, one is encouraged to be aware of what one is SUPPOSED to be aware of, and furthermore, if social controls are to be and remain workable, one should not become aware of what one is NOT supposed to be aware of.
It is thus that most evolve and imprint not only somewhat precise mind maps containing what they are supposed to be aware of, but also evolve at least rough mind maps of what they are not supposed to be aware of.
This to say that most become SENSITIZED, via social reinforcement, to what they are supposed to be aware of, and at least roughly discouraged and DESENSITIZED, via social intolerance, with respect to what they are not supposed to be aware of.
In conditions like this, the worst thing in the world is to ask people what they have actually become or are aware of, especially if smatterings of super sensitivities are involved.
It is not surprising, therefore, that studies of awareness and potential awareness are few and far between, and that what might be called Complete Awareness 101, or even mere Awareness 101, is absent just about everywhere. There is no encyclopedia itemizing either the scope of awareness magnitudes of our species or the innate capacities within consciousness that make such magnitudes possible.
It does turn out, however, that so-called "archaic" peoples, living and trying to obtain their life-support needs within the dangerous vicissitudes of Natural environments did tend to encourage enhancement of awareness, instincts, intuitions, etc., including various kinds of super sensitivities.
So-called "civilized" people don't need to do much of this kind of thing, because life-support elements are more easily at hand, and thus mere objective experiencing stands them in good stead, more or less anyway, depending on their social strata positions.
It is quite well known to anthropologists that peoples depending on Nature for their life-support needs encourage the development and enhancement of higher and more extensive levels of awareness, because Nature beautiful and wonderful is also fraught with serious dangers to life and limb.
Archaic (i.e., pre-civilized) peoples did not have our present vocabulary for super sensitivities. But what we refer to as developed instinct rated very highly, as did extensive awareness enhancement, up to and including their versions of telepathy over distance, certain pro-survival clairvoyant capacities, higher quality premonitions, and possibly enhancement of infrared and ultra violet sensing, and, of course, awareness of various kinds of other intuitions.
This suggests that archaic societies quite probably did have some kind of Awareness 101 tutoring in mind – or, as perhaps better said, Appreciation of Awareness Potentials 101.
AWARE is principally defined as "to be wary," but the "archaic" definition is given as "watchful." More modern definitions are given as "having or showing perception, realization, or knowledge."
Synonyms are given as COGNIZANT, CONSCIOUS OF, SENSIBLE, ALIVE, AWAKE.
As found in Webster's International dated 1966, in the contexts of being aware, AWAKE "implies that one has become alive to something and is on the alert." SENSIBLE "implies direct or intuitive perceiving, especially of intangibles or of emotional states or qualities." ALIVE "adds to SENSIBLE the implication of acute sensitivity of something."
However, Webster's 1966 does not point up that these SAME awareness definitions were being utilized and worked with in Sanskrit 3,000 or more years ago – Sanskrit Awareness 101?
14. THE RELATIONSHIP OF INNATE SUPER SENSITIVITES TO TEACH-LEARN-TRAIN SITUATIONS
SO, WE HAVE words denoting certain kinds or types of super sensitivities – such as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, etc.
Because the words have been brought into existence, and because they have established definitions, it is generally assumed, by utilizing the words-plus-definitions, that it is understood what is being talked about.
Thus, for example, the definition of TELEPATHY is mind-to-mind "mind reading."
CLAIRVOYANCE – "the professed power of discerning objects not present to the physical senses."
PRECOGNITION – "having clairvoyant cognition relating to a future event or situation that has not yet occurred."
Additionally, these and other parapsychology terms are referred to as "abilities."
Thereafter, teach-learn-train procedures depend on or proceed from the intellectual frameworks established by such terms-definitions, and the whole of this seems to make perfect intellectual sense having no flaws because we do know what we are talking about.
Well, as with just about everything else that is more or less JUST intellectual, it follows that teach-learn procedures can and do emulate such intellectualized frameworks, and so the intellectualized information transferred from teach to learn can be perfectly understood, again with the idea we know what we are talking about.
But subtle problems begin to be recognizable when it comes to TRAINING of the alleged "abilities."
For starters, it can be thought that IF the intellectualized frameworks were, say, ENTIRELY workable, then efficient and vigorous activation of super sensitivity training would have manifested some time ago – producing thousands of all kinds of efficient super sensitivity experts and workers.
It must clearly be pointed out that the above musing is not at all intended to demean any attempts to enhance super sensitivity processes, because ANY attempts to do so are seriously better than none at all. After all, it is the super sensitivity heritage of our species that is involved, and any attempts at such enhancing should be properly appreciated in this specific sense.
So with respect to any attempts of such kind, it can be said that what works does work, to the degree such can be seen to work. And in this sense, we can learn as much from failed attempts as successful ones.
However, the point under discussion here is not (in any criticizing manner) directed at real or alleged super sensitivity training attempts. Instead the point is directed to the possibility that mere intellectualized understanding is quite different from more profound experiential understanding.
In this sense, in all fields of human activity it is easily demonstrated that "book" or "armchair" learning is quite different from direct experiential learning – i.e., direct experiencing in the open field of experiencing.
So, two questions can now be posed, the first of which is: Does efficient super sensitivity training mostly emerge from "book" and "armchair" learning, or would such training more emerge from direct experiencing of super sensitivities themselves?
The second question might ask if the word-definitions of the various super sensitivities actually and accurately reflect the intimate processes involved, and some of which remain decidedly unidentified?
There are partial answers to these two questions, and all of such answers depend on WHAT is trainable. E.g., would one be training words-plus-definitions-plus-intellectualizing concepts; or, would one be training direct super sensitivity experiencing?
After all, the relationship of our super sensitivities to the teach-learn-train thing DOES NOT so much depend on what can be taught-learning, but on WHAT in general CAN be trained.
There is a subtle Situational problem involved here – in that it is generally assumed that learning and training equate to the same thing.
However, learning consists only of learning, but training consists of applied learning plus direct experiencing – APPLY being defined as "to put to use, especially for some practical purpose."
If, however, super sensitivity learning is not meant to be applied, then training efforts are not applicable, right?
It is always useful to clarify the definitions of terms when attempting to write about them, especially in the contexts of super sensitivity discussions. Such is the case with the words to TEACH, to LEARN, and to TRAIN, the more precise functions of which often become confused with each other.
TEACH is taken from the Medieval English TECHEN meaning "to show," but the modern definitions are "to cause to know a subject; to cause to know; to impart the knowledge of; to instruct by precept, example, or experience."
LEARN is defined as "to gain knowledge or understanding or skill in by study, instruction or experience; to come to be able to; to come to realize."
TRAIN is defined as "to direct growth of; to form by instruction, discipline or drill; to teach so as to be fitted, qualified, or proficient; to make prepared for a test or performance of a skill."
It is obvious that the contexts of these three terms are interactive, but subtle differences between them do exist.
The central context of TEACH is simply to instruct.
The central context of LEARN is simply to be instructed whether by others or by oneself.
The central context of TRAIN is to make proficiently prepared by directing (via instruction, discipline, and drill) the GROWTH or UNFOLDMENT of potential activity."
Aside from the definition of "a stage in the process of growing, the central context of GROWTH is "progressive development as in emergence, evolution, increase, or expansion."
The teacher-learner relationship is wonderful, of course, especially if teacher is proficient and learner is interested, so there is much to be said of that relationship. But there is always the matter of what is being taught and what is being learned.
It can be mentioned, as many have done, that just about anything can be taught and learned – including, as it must be said, misconceptions, "facts" not based on facts, suppositions, speculations, assumptions, all sorts of falsities, and etc.
Such can be taught without either teacher or learner being the wiser, and sometimes not having any recognition that what is taught and what is learned do not produce the phenomena of any kind of "growth."
In other words, such teachings as these have their own contexts and always yield those same contexts – until it is recognized that they are, as it is said, "the mothers of all fuck-ups."
There are, of course, teachings that result in better and more knowing, showings, and learnings – some such teachings perhaps not resulting in too much growth of anything, but rather resulting in rote application of the learned knowing with little growth beyond what has been learned.
For example, a mere unfounded opinion can be taught and learned; a theory (which at first is also mere opinion based on supposition, etc.) can be taught after which both teacher and learner might tend to think of themselves as learned; an idea, whether fruitful or not, can be taught; a falsity, whether recognized as such or not, can be taught; prejudices can be taught/learned; etc, and ad infinitum.
The teacher-learner relationship seems to be a dynamic factor innate in our species, and when that important relationship does work and bear positive fruit it is absolutely terrific.
It is possible to think that in the absence of the innate teacher-learner function, everyone would have to figure out everything for themselves – perhaps including toilet training. As it is, however, the teacher-learner relationship automatically commences everywhere our species is found.
But this statement must be slightly qualified, in that this teach-learn-train concept usually automatically commences in relationship to becoming conscious of physically objective realities, based on the physical senses and, as has been discussed, modernist concepts of consciousness do exclusively relate it to perception of physical objects.
This is to say that consciousness is based on awareness-cum-perception of material objects - i.e., Matter-Only things and stuff.
However, super sensitivity types of consciousness involve other kinds of awareness-perceptions that imply the existence of consciousness without an object.
(NOTE: This author has discovered only one extensive modern philosophic treatment of this in THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT AN OBJECT by Franklin Merrell-Wolff, first published in 1923, reissued by Julian Press in 1973.)
So the now probable existence of awareness-consciousness not based on objects opens a door onto the subtle, but significant, vista of all kinds of super sensitivities not exactly explainable in Matter-Only terms – not only involving super sensitive awareness of ghosts which can't quite be considered or explained as Matter-Only – but which subtle super sensitivities, if enhanced, might be inconvenient to awareness-consciousness based on Matter-Only objects.
In any event, teach-learn-train processes are quite identifiable with respect to objective matter realities, largely because it is usually understood WHAT can be trained – such as intelligence experientially operating within the contexts of this or that kind of physical matter.
However, when it comes to super sensitivities that transcend objective matter realities, teach-learn can intellectually convey what has been learned, or thought to be learned, about them.
But the TRAINING aspect is not understood (in general that is), because whatever is involved has long been assumed to involve intelligence experientially operating within contexts other than those of objective physical matter.
So, is that assumption entirely correct?
15. THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEACH-LEARN-TRAIN TO THE BRAIN'S INNATE MOTOR CORTEX
LEARNING ABOUT the motor cortex of the brain is probably not very high on everyone's reading agenda. So something resembling a suggestive reason to take interest in the matter needs to be established.
We will begin by referring back to the incident of walking along a mountain path, body stopping, legs moving backward, cliff collapsing in a tremendous avalanche, life saved – all of which took place WITHOUT volitional conscious reason or explanation. Thousands of similar events exist in various literatures.
These events are understood as having occurred via non-conscious intuition, non-conscious gut-feeling, non-conscious instinct, etc.
The events are, after the fact, intellectually quite appreciated as such, as some kind of extraordinary events.
But one important factor is seldom, if ever, discussed – why the body was stopped without a trace of volitional reason, why the legs stepped backward, also without conscious reason. Indeed, none of the several factors operational in various kinds of similar of events were accompanied by conscious reason.
In other words, this entire event was totally involuntary, taking place beneath, above, or outside of conscious perceptions and reason – and none of which is explainable, except particular one factor.
No biophysical motion, whether voluntary or involuntary, takes place without motor cortex activity.
In the biological sense, MOTOR is basically defined as "Something that causes or imparts motion;
of, or relating to, or being a nerve fiber that passes from the central nervous system or a ganglion to a muscle and conducts an impulse that causes movement;
also, a motorneuron, a nerve cell with its processes;
a muscle designed to move a particular part of the animal frame;
a nerve whose function is to excite muscular activity in a particular part of the animal body."
Prior to about 1800, it was generally thought that the muscles themselves supplied their own "muscular energy" so as to result in their motions.
At about 1808, it was being held that "In every motion, there must always be a number of muscles employed, some as motors, some as directors, some as moderators."
However, by about 1899, motor-motion seems to have taken on, shall we say, a "mental" aspect – for example, "If we think of a ball, this idea must comprise the images of these muscular sensations, as it comprises the images of sight and touch.
"Such is the motor image. Also, by making reading and writing proceed together, the two memories, visual and motor, are constrained to associate and to aid one another."
In 1900, it was announced (in AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, April, XI, 210) that "Motor phenomena are now regarded as necessary in all mental processes."
In 1903, the THE AMERICAN NATURALIST (March, XXXVII, 207) indicated that "To whatever sense the stimulus is given, the impulse has to go to the motor-image centers, and then to the muscles."
At some point this author has not yet been able accurately to determine, but probably about 1924, it was either discovered or decided that the "motor-image centers" resided in what then became termed as the "motor cortex."
Also during the 1920s, a general Map of the Brain was produced by "a French woman" (whose name has not yet been discovered by this author).
This Map seems to have endured – until quite recently.
In any event, the physical placement of the motor cortex is situated at the top of the brain. The motor cortical areas are now typically divided into three regions that have different functional roles: The Primary Motor Cortex (M1); the Premotor Areas (PMA); and the Supplementary Motor Area (SMA).
The purpose of M1 is to connect the brain to the lower motor neurons via the spinal cord in order to tell them which particular muscles need to contract. These M1 upper motor neurons are found in layer 5 of the motor cortex and contain some of the largest cells in the brain. (If one is interested, Map diagrams of the physical brain are easily available.)
It has, however, proven difficult to locate anything like an elegant definition of the motor cortex composed of 200 words or less.
It is usually pointed up as "The region that is mainly involved with motor functions," after which discussions descend into describing its internal physical details and minutia for which physical evidence is identifiable.
The entire brain is also described along such physical lines, i.e., how areas of the brain physically act or react to objective information fed into it via the five objective physical senses.
This is completely in accord with the Matter-Only thing, and so activities associated with super sensitivities that seem to transcend matter, space, energy, and time have not scientifically been looked for.
NOTE: Excepting, of course, the recent and now ongoing discoveries of premotor cortex involvement with mind-to-mind sensing of others' intentions and motives – in that intentions and motives hardly fall into any completely neurophysical category.
This Map Situation, however, is undergoing change – because it seems that cutting edge research of the brain is rendering the old map/model of the brain more or less obsolete.
For example, the physical brain was once the exclusive territory of neurobiologists.
These must now move over a bit so as to include what are being called "3D brain mappers and cartographers" who scan brains via all sorts of imaging devices, and are thus busy attempting to create the most detailed and sophisticated computer brain-atlas ever assembled.
In December 2001, BBC News interviewed Arthur Toga, director of the Laboratory of Neuro Imaging at the University of California (UCLA), who complained (here somewhat paraphrased): That the old brain-map that has served as a model for the billions of brains on the planet has been inappropriate in terms of representing the entire human population;
That the old brain-map was mostly an physical anatomical one, so the fuller scope of its functions have not been mapped in any comprehensive way;
That brains may be anatomically similar in general, but individually their functions vary in accord with genetic inheritance and other factors;
And that no one yet has been able to identify what a "normal" brain should look like.
Troubles with the old brain-map have also arisen elsewhere in other types of research.
For example, it was once thought that since the brain is divided according to its anatomical "regions," that each of such parts and activities had a separate identifiable function.
MRI and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanning have recently indicated that when the brain is in this or that kind of activity, not just parts but ALL of its regions light up more or less like fireworks in the night sky, as if scads of "information messages" were being exchanged among the regions with great velocity. (See the article entitled SPREADING CONSCIOUSNESS: AWARENESS GOES GLOBAL IN THE BRAIN, by Bruce Bower in SCIENCE NEWS, October 19, 2002.)
The September 29, 2001 issue of SCIENCE NEWS featured an article (by Bruce Bower) entitled JOINED AT THE SENSES: PERCEPTION MAY FEAST ON A SENSORY STEW, NOT A FIVE-SENSE BUFFET. This article basically discusses evidence that helps explain one of the fundamental mysteries of the brain – i.e., how it unites separate sensations into multifaceted experiences.
So, on-going research of these kinds seem to imply that progress is being made with respect to identifying all sorts of functions of the brain. And indeed is seems that progress is being made in discovering what has NOT been known about it.
As already mention, in its April 2004 issue, the venerable SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN featured a lead article (by R. Douglas Fields) entitled HAS SCIENCE MISSED HALF OF THE BRAIN? NEGLECTED CELLS HOLD KEYS TO THOUGHT AND LEARNING.
This article discusses the topic of "Mounting evidence suggesting that Glial cells, overlooked for half a century, may be nearly as critical to thinking and learning as neurons are." In the past, Glial cells, even though out-numbering neural cells nine to one, were thought to have only a maintenance role, such as bringing nutrients to neurons, maintaining a healthy balance of ions in the brain, and so forth.
It has now been discovered that Glia influence the formation of synapses and help to determine which neural connections get stronger or weaker over time, such changes being essential to learning and to storing long-term memories.
Research along these lines has begun to show that Glial cells also communicate among themselves in a separate but parallel network to the neural network – which is tantamount to being ANOTHER brain inside the neural network one.
So, although yet cautious, neuroscientists are excited by the prospect that more than half the brain that has gone largely unexplored may contain a trove of information about how the entire brain actually works.
To remind AGAIN, interlocked within all of the above advancing discoveries, were also the discoveries of mirror "telepathic" neurons in the premotor cortex.
Meanwhile, while all of the above discoveries developed, certain neuro scientists have recently embellished on the discovery of "The OTHER Brain, the One With Butterflies."
According to THE NEW YORK TIMES (23August2005), this is "the brain in your gut." So, the human body has two brains, "the one at the top of the spinal cord and the hidden but powerful brain in the gut known as the enteric nervous system." This article includes, in glorious color, a cut-away anatomical diagram of the gut.
The TIMES article more or less focuses on physical (and some psychological) situations and difficulties that might occur between the two brains. But in the contexts of this Situational paper, it can be noted that the rather famous "gut-feelings" involving premonitions, instincts, and presentiments, etc., have a long human history.
Most of the advancing research efforts briefly discussed above are still quite locked into focusing only on anatomical physical phenomena, and don't seem quite ready to include experiential super sensory functioning. So "more-than-half" of human experiencing functions are still being missed, i.e., those functionable aspects relative to information that transcends mere physical, objective perceptions.
But it is somewhat obvious that many of the old realities about brains are in process of being turned upside down.
However, most of the old concepts about the motor cortex are still holding water, and especially two of them as already mentioned.
Returning to the motor cortex, as a brain part, it is located at the very top of the brain and, deeply embedded downward within it, is the region mainly involved with motor functions in which precise muscle-moving signals originate.
Just in front of this primary cortex is the premotor cortex, the primary "receiving" area for detected incoming signals, and for initiating and sequencing movements - and which is also associated with "higher intellectual functions," especially those associated with "planning and intention." (This is the principal area in which the apparently innate mirror (telepathic) neurons have recently been discovered.)
It is generally appreciated that the importance of the motor cortexes cannot be over estimated, in that if they don't work, then nothing else does either - even though elsewhere in the general nervous systems neural detectors-receptors are busy enough initiating "waves of excitation" that remain undetected by the two cortexes.
Likewise, it seems that although the motor cortexes might have different kinds of innate capacities, some of these kinds might not become awakened or activated – which is the same as saying that they are not working. And even if awakened or activated, they might not have pierced through the veil of cognitive unawareness.
The motor cortexes are definitely innately and diversely hardwired to deal with the enormous varieties of stimuli and resulting waves of excitation provided by the five physical sensing organs. The "kingdom" of these five is, of course, the objective physical material universe, but only insofar as the detecting limits of the five permit.
It is thus that tremendously strong general and special perceptual responsive learning "programs" are developed within the motor cortexes, programs based exclusively on physical stimuli (whatever these consist of in different environments.)
E.g., learning to walk, talk in different languages, skillfully and automatically managing computer keyboards with all ten fingers, riding bicycles without thinking about it, etc., all of which require at least the equivalent of some kind motor-skill training - but most of which might not require all that much intelligence, because after all everyone can perceive and interpret the Here & Now physicality in more or less equal playing field ways, and which perceiving does not require the introduction of all that much super sensitivity.
So, it is possible to end up with very strong motor cortex perceptions and interpretations of OBJECTIVE PHYSICALITY via the famous five sensory organs – and not much else, even though the motor cortexes might also be innately hardwired for dealing with other kinds of perceiving, say, super sensitivity perceiving.
So, properly outfitted with matter-only perceptions, one can be walking along and just about to cross a bridge or something of the kind, and suddenly experiences a compelling premonition to stop walking. One stops walking without conscious reasons for doing so.
During this involuntary stop walking pause, the bridge, or whatever, then collapses – even though there was no consciously perceived apparent physical, objective, Here & Now reason for it to do so.
So, the situational question here has to do with what DID perceive the collapse of the bridge (or mountain side) BEFORE it did collapse, and after pulling off this non-conscious bit of wonderment, what involuntarily MOVED the body backward.
It certainly seems that "something" was perceiving ahead in time, perceived the forthcoming danger, put two and two together via some kind of non-conscious thinking, and galvanized the processes of the motor cortex systems to move somewhere outside the perceived, forthcoming danger zone.
As already elaborated, there are multitudes of historical examples of this kind of spontaneous event, and so it is almost an equal bit of wonderment as to why involuntary movement that takes the objective body out of harm's way has not been researched, and especially so in parapsychology.
About the only clue to all of this is found in the following two early statements about the motor cortex:
MOTOR PHENOMENA ARE REGARDED AS NECESSARY IN ALL MENTAL PROCESSES.
WHATEVER SENSE THE STIMULUS IS GIVEN, THE IMPULSE HAS TO GO TO THE MOTOR-IMAGE CENTERS.
At the time these two motor cortex provisos were formulated, they obviously referred to objective physical stimuli that transferred objective information to the motor cortex that forwarded such to the brain's associative areas, and then into the conscious cognitive areas of the brain.
But if these two motor cortex provisos can be interpreted as including super sensitivity stimuli-impulses resulting in super sensitivity information transfers, then the two provisos equally apply to objective and super sensitivity information transfers.
Which is again to say that without motor cortex involvement and participation, nothing can be perceived consciously or otherwise to happen, and therefore nothing can be experienced, nothing can be taught, learned, or trained.
16. THE SITUATIONAL QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE INNATE MOTOR CORTEX CAN DIRECTLY AND "MENTALLY" INTERACT WITH SUPER SENSITIVITY INFORMATION
IN CLOSING this Situational Paper, it is now necessary to TRY to discuss the "mental" aspects of the brain's rather complicated motor cortexes. Basic information about those cortexes can rather massively be found by consulting appropriate neurological textbooks and in Internet sources.
In order to TRY to get into this situational question, there is the question of what is meant by the term MENTAL.
For about 200 years, perhaps a bit more, that term has, in English, almost exclusively come to refer to whatever is psychological and outside the scale of given situations characterized, it is thought, by (get this!) "normality."
In turn, NORMAL is defined as "according to, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle."
NORM refers to "a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group; an authoritative standard."
However, MENTAL is principally defined as "occurring or experienced in the mind" – such as THINKING in the awake conscious state of doing so.
THINK has a number of definitions that describe different kinds of thought-experiencing that go on in the mind.
The scope of most of these THINK definitions are reflected in a sort of confused and intellectually messy grab bag containing the term's given synonyms - such as CONCEIVE, IMAGINE, FANCY, REALIZE, ENVISAGE, COGITATE, REFLECT, REASON, DELIBERATE, SPECULATE, FANTASIZE, THEORIZE, SPECULATE, etc.
However, the most basic definition of THINK has to do with "attainment of clear ideas or conclusions," and in the light of this definition most of the given synonyms might not actually qualify as "think." But the synonyms do suggest much "think" that needs to be desensitized in order to achieve this or that condition of "typical mental behavior of a normalized social group."
If the capacity potentials for super sensitivities are innate, such may spontaneously be experienced only in the contexts of special real circumstances, especially the spontaneous kinds that result in saving lives.
However, the term THINK is not applied to such cases, probably because such spontaneous experiencing is commonly understood as not being based on thinking that is understood mostly to take place via cognitive processes of the awake mind – which, if not out to lunch altogether, is busily at work trying to apply reason to whatever is being thought about.
Even so, when one is spontaneously saved from avalanches, collapsing bridges, or mine fields in war, "something" outside of conscious reason has gained the necessary "attainment of clear ideas or conclusions" that activated the otherwise unexplainable saving sequence.
In any event, why and how "attainment of clear ideas or conclusions" is achieved is hardly ever discussed with reference to verifiable super sensitivity activities.
But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that it is achieved via processing of information either in the non-conscious parts of the brain, or in non-conscious capacities of Consciousness itself, or at least somewhere in human neurological systems (discovered or yet undiscovered) that can pull off the necessary "attainment," even if conscious reasoning is not conscious of such.
Now, nothing can do anything unless it has capacities to do so – this being the case both with (1) creating artificial intelligence mechanisms into which information-processing capacities have been hardwired, and (2) as well as with any biological organism that has, hopefully, modicums of hardwired capacities to do so.
With respect to information acquired via super sensitivity processes, the ever-so-important bottom line points to hardwired capacities for processing information, in the absence of which such information would not get processed – with the logical fallout that no one is the wiser about such unprocessed information, but might be dead in an avalanche, etc.
A rather laborious effort has been made in this document to substantiate that specimens of the human species often EXPERIENCE various kinds of spontaneous super sensitivity events, generically referred to as premonitions, intuitions, or instincts that are experienced even though the THINK mechanisms of conscious reason has not been involved.
The why and how of these experiencing events cannot be explained by depending on the physical senses or by objective reason-logic based on them.
So when the why and how of the super sensitivity event ultimately proves correct, there is no real way to explain anything.
We shall now begin modifying the above sentence so as to state it in a slightly different ways.
When the information of the super sensitivity event ultimately proves correct, about the only explanation possible is that there exist capacities for sensing information that is not sensed by our objective physical senses or by reason-logic based on them.
There are three specific factors to be considered here:
(1) When the physical motor systems of the body involuntarily move the body out of harm's way before it is consciously realized that such has actually taken place, it should be obvious -
(2) That sensing systems transcending the physical ones have processed relevant information and "attained clear ideas and conclusions" about it, and -
(3) Then DONE something about it, including preempting the brain's central motor systems (even though this usually leaves one's "mind" in an astonished and confused flutter.)
In other words, the conscious "mind" is not the only aspect of human capacities that processes information, in that it seems quite clear that the motor cortex is involved in interacting with information the conscious "mind" is not processing.
So in the contexts of verifiable super sensitivity experiencing and activity, there must exist –
Capacities (largely unidentified) that process information in ways that transcend (or transgress) the known "laws" of matter, energy, space, and time as objectively seen in the material realms;
Capacities of awareness that undercut objective, conscious awareness of those material realms – but which capacities can nonetheless interact with the brain via its motor cortex and associative systems, or perhaps the entire autonomic nervous system altogether.
To reiterate, the term CAPACITY has several materialistic definitions. It also refers to (1) the ability to hold, receive, store, and accommodate information; and (2) the POWER to grasp and analyze ideas and cope with problems, situations, and experience.
The term POWER also has some materialistic definitions, and, of course, several social ones. But that term also applies to human faculties of ability capacities, to personal or species capacities, to natural aptitude capacities, the term NATURAL referring to capacities innate.
Although the use of the term POWER in these contexts has been unfashionable for several decades, it is nevertheless derived from POTENT simply defined as "to be powerful" in the context of POTENTIALITY defined as "capable of development into actuality."
In these contexts, then, it seems that natural-innate super sensitivity capacities exist that are capable of development into actuality, but might not be developed into activity.
However, if verifiable and efficient spontaneous super sensitivity events take place, it would seem that the capacities involved simply blossom into activity all by themselves, and do so without consciously struggling to "develop" them within whatever is passing for normal reasoning.
Two of the useful definitions of DEVELOP are "to set forth or make clear by degrees or in detail; also, to make active."
Thus, in order to develop undeveloped capacities, it is necessary to be taught so as to learn something about them in terms of clear degrees and details.
However, it is commonly understood that to render a developing capacity into an active state, not only is learning required, but also TRAINING – defined as "to form by instruction, discipline, or drill, so as to become prepared for a test of skill."
It is, of course, completely recognized, in the materialistic sense, that humans have both innate and acquired capacities for objectively interacting, via the physical senses, with material objectivity.
It is also accepted that increasing the potentials for this interacting can be achieved via all kinds of teach-learn-train processes, and that such processes can be applied even if intimate details of brain activity are not known.
For example, although it is thought that one "learns" to ride a bicycle, such is not accomplished by the learning, but by training into the motor cortex an experiential program that eventually works automatically on its own.
The same applies to anything else that requires motor cortex participation, such attaining efficiency in sports, various of the martial arts, ballet dancing, vocal training, utilizing a computer keyboard with all ten fingers, language training, recognition of super sensitivity information aspects such as "psyching out" land mines in a jungle, sensing intentions and motives of others, etc. ad infinitum.
It is worth reminding that brain activity, much less details of it, were NOT historically known until, roughly, the beginning of the nineteenth century A.D., and which details are not YET fully known as this document is being constructed.
Today, however, it is fully recognized that the associative and motor cortexes are fully involved in the teach-learn-train processes, and with the memory components, too.
MEMORY reflects an obvious and a powerful innate capacity, the existence of which could not have gone unnoticed even in ancient times (although in today's sciences, the location in the brain of the Seat of Memory is a mystery still to be solved, along with the Seat of the Mind, and the Seat of Consciousness itself.)
So, an important issue-question arises, one that has not been even minimally addressed in our modernist, materialistic, scientific times.
Before the modern discovery of brain details, it is quite obvious that the teach-learn-train thing had been recognized throughout human history.
But teach-learn-train procedures need to be based against perceptible evidence indicating the existence of something can benefit from teach-learn-train efforts.
We will slip into this important issue somewhat sidewise. If something is NOT experienced, then whatever is involved doesn't exist as such, and there can be no concept of applying teach-learn-train procedures to it.
But if experiencing, especially various kinds of super sensitivity pro-survival experiencing, IS experienced, then there might arise interest in evolving teach-learn-train procedures so as to enhance whatever experiential dynamics are involved.
This applies more or less equally to experiencing the objective via enhancing the dynamics of physical sensitivities, as well as to experiencing super sensitivities via, as it might simply be put, enhancing the dynamics of super sensitivity.
Of course, those who have not experienced spontaneous eruptions of what we today refer to as instincts, premonitions, or intuitions, might be at sea here.
But in the past, in rough and tough environments (including human nature environments), the potential advantages of experiencing instinct, intuition, and premonition could not possibly have gone unnoticed – in that all of these super sensitivities demonstrate various kinds of FOREWARNINGS not directly available via the objective physical senses alone.
Forewarnings are GOOD – at least relative to environments and topics where they are useful.
As already discussed, no one can experience anything for which rudimentary capacities don't exist. Such capacities might exist in a latent, or inactive unawakened condition – such as is the general case not only for super sensitivity capacities, but also for mere objective sensitivity the larger experiencing scope of which is often found in desensitized (or not enhanced) conditions.
But that capacities for super sensitivities do exist is vouched for via all human languages (even so-called "archaic" ones) that contain many terms reflecting many different kinds and types of them.
In fact, the few modern terms we have used for them probably represent only the tip of the VAST super sensitivity iceberg – VAST here referring back to the discussions about Sanskrit multiple realities.
As also earlier discussed, the modern, materialist Objection to super sensitivities was that no physical source or physical processes could be discovered for them – and so they could not be considered either as innate or acquired capacities.
This Objection was more probably based on social intolerance of super sensitivities rather than on real scientific observation and research.
In any event, after about 200 some odd years of the supposed legitimacy of this Objection, mirror "telepathic" neurons were discovered to be innate in the premotor cortex not only in monkeys, but in humans also – apparently much alive and working in monkeys, apparently less alive and working in humans.
Mind reading (also a component of forewarning) represents one of the most socially sensitive issues imaginable. However, enhanced instinct, intuition, and premonition are probably as socially sensitive as telepathy – IF any or all of these might respond to the teach-learn-training thing designed so as to involve motor cortex participation.
So, can such super sensitivities be trained?
As discussed in the Sanskrit sections earlier, probably NOT unless at least a modicum of experiencing capacity can be awakened, that is, be coaxed up from a latent to a somewhat active state.
After that, as is quite well understood today, the brain's motor cortexes are certainly involved, and that anything involving the motor and associative cortexes almost certainly can be taught-learned-trained.
Because, you see, motor responses CAN be trained, as well as can anything involving information transfers if they become recognizable as such.
This is entirely in keeping with the known fact that incoming information is first processed via the motor cortex, then forwarded to and processed by the associative systems.
As we now near the close of this Situational report, there are two very subtle Situations involved that have not been identified as such.
The modernist scientific Objection to the super sensitivities held (1) that they could not be explained or accounted for by Matter-Only sources or processes; and (2) that since Matter was the only reality, there was no other reality that might account for them and or provide ways and means for their processes.
Thus, the super sensitivities were dubbed as EXTRA-SENSIBLE, defined as "beyond the each of sensuous perception" – meaning beyond the limited scopes of the five objective physical senses, and beyond the reach of objective-matter-only sciences, too.
The term EXTRA-SENSIBLE was converted to EXTRASENSORY PERCEPTION by the J. B. Rhine, whose famous book of the same title was published in 1934, and which term "denoted awareness apparently received through channels other than the usual [physical] senses."
One of the principal results of this was that the super sensitivities, and evidence of them, became detached from any physical contexts, after which it was assumed that there was nothing that connected them to physicality. Thus, there was no logical reason to look for such connections either in parapsychology or in the Matter-Only brain.
This Situation remained in place until about 1996 when mirror "telepathic" neurons were discovered in, of all places, the physical premotor cortex of the physical brain – and which discovery came as a "surprising" shock to matter-only scientists and numerous parapsychologists, too.
This implied that TELEPATHY, ambiguously defined as "mind-to- mind" can now be rendered more precisely as "premotor cortex to premotor cortex," although this conceptual shift has not actually occurred yet.
Meanwhile, the ongoing cutting edges of physics and astrophysics had determined that the Matter-Only universe was not a matter-only one – in that the Universe was also occupied not only by dark interpenetrating energies, but equally interpenetrating subtle and exotic energies, as well as multiple interpenetrating dimensions and interpenetrating realities, etc.
It might be presumed that these other realities "carry" or "manifest" various kinds of information that are not governed by the objective "laws" of Matter but apparently by yet unknown "laws" of their own.
So, it seems that there exist interpenetrating "laws" as well as "interpenetrating" information – concepts that somewhat resemble concepts and terms found in the Sanskrit (and many other) languages.
Thus, we are obliged to reexamine the general definition of EXTRASENSORY PERCEPTION once given as a term that "denoted awareness apparently received through channels other than the usual [physical] senses."
We might, for example, begin this reexamination by asking "awareness" of What?
If AWARNESS is to be defined as "having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge," then it is quite proper think in terms of perception of What, realization of What, knowledge of What.
You see, although it might be too simplistic to say so, if there is nothing to become aware of, there will not be any awareness of it.
In other words, awareness occurs AFTER the fact of the existence or presence of something that can stimulate awareness of it.
To repeat so as to GRIND this in, if there is not something to become aware of, then awareness does not ensue, take place, or manifest.
So, awareness itself cannot be "received," but information might be received through channels that might provoke, awaken, or stimulate awareness of whatever such information consists of – and which information is thus converted into perception of it, realization of it, and knowledge about it.
It is now reasonable to ask where, why, and how such information is thusly converted within innate Consciousness perspectives and capacities – in that, again, if Consciousness does not exist then utter universes of information might exist with nothing to "receive" it.
So it could be thought that Information exists; Consciousness exists; Within Consciousness are capacities to detect Information; It seems that the physical Brain has something to do with "recognizing" different types of Information; Thus the Brain must have different kinds of neural (and other) information recognition detectors and which commence the processing of Information as different kinds of information; Such information may refer to physical objective information, and to super sensitivity information acquired by other "channels than the usual physical senses"
After all of this, conscious-of Awareness may or may not take place; But nonetheless, there is one Brain Part that seems to recognize information whether conscious-of-Awareness takes place; So far as is understood, this Brain Part seems principally to consist of the Motor Cortex and its closely affiliated sub-parts; One of which is designated as the premotor cortex; Which is the physical Brain Part in which mirror telepathic neurons have been discovered and which apparently possesses innate "channels" that deal with detecting information (such as intentions and motives) in others; And which particular motor cortex capacities probably represent only the tip of the super sensitivity iceberg.
17. THE SHIFTING SUM OF THE SITUATIONS
WITH THE exception of the Situations forming up because of the new scientific discoveries, the contexts of most of the other Situations probably would have continued to endure.
As discussed, the most apparent principal reason for this projection probably has to do with social antagonism toward super sensitivities that might interfere with the protection of confidentiality and secrecy upon which many human activities depend.
Early psychical and later parapsychological research certainly suffered from such antagonism, although both research objectives were energetically pursued at their startups.
Both of those research objectives essentially focused on identifying super sensitivity phenomena – psychical research focusing on general experiential phenomena in the presence of suitable witnesses, while parapsychological research focused more narrowly on theoretical statistical phenomena gained in laboratory settings.
Neither research objectives undertook examination of how to enhance or train super sensitivities - principally because it was thought that super sensitivities were special "gifts" or "abilities" of individuals often of very different psychological types, but altogether consisting of a census of only 7 percent or less in given populations. So their "gifts" or "abilities" were more or less considered as psychological flukes occurring by inconsistent unidentifiable chance.
Many popular books were early available that presented evidence of individuals spontaneously experiencing some kind of super sensitivity event, especially of the premonition, intuitive, and future-seeing kinds.
These sources of indicated that such spontaneous experiencing took place quite more frequently than expected, and did so among individuals in whom special "gifts" and "abilities" did not manifest as such. This quite large body of evidence was more or less dismissed as merely anecdotal – meaning questionable and possibly fictitious.
The concept that rudimentary super sensitivities might be species-innate achieved only extremely minimal discussion in closets, and, at any rate, was never connected up with anecdotal body of spontaneous evidence, with the exception of certain "occult" studies ostracized from psychical and parapsychological research, as well as from modernist philosophic and scientific endeavors.
This mix of Situations was so cemented in place that even when advancing quantum studies began revealing phenomena of non-locality and non-Matter realities that might have implications for Consciousness, such phenomena were only very tacitly connected up with super sensitivity probabilities or potentials.
In this author's thirty some odd years in super sensitivity research, no one, including himself, could imagine anything of sufficient magnitude that might shift this complex Situational cement to any significant degree.
Then, voila! Mirror "telepathic" neurons are discovered in premotor cortexes of brains – in which, albeit yet undiscovered, are supposed to be the Seats of Consciousness, Seats of Minds, Seats of Memory, as well as other possible Seats yet undiscovered or imagined. So, how about Seats of Super Sensitivities? This, of course, is just a vague question here.
In the PHYSICAL brain, no less – hence a Situation scientific, albeit a New one, unexpected, but implying all sorts of ramifications, including biogenetic ones, innateness, Gosh, probably more, such as a new Sum or all Fears – efficient mind-reading if it proves trainable.
And where there is one brain-confirmed super sensitivity critter roaming about, it there is likely to be others – as the old saying somewhat goes. And so some Situational shifts along such lines might be anticipated.
Perhaps the biggest Situational shift has to do with the failure of the Matter-Is-The-Only-Reality thing. Of course Matter itself is not going to shift. But the implications of Stuff interpenetrating Matter, such as multiple dimensions realities, etc., would result in new types of science in addition to the material sciences.
Thus, a shift from one exclusive type of science to multiple types of it - such as is happening already, albeit in a sort of infant stage of development.
Those living exclusively within and fixated by the contexts of gross, objective material realities would not be affected by such scientific shifts – unless it turns out that interpenetrating multiple Stuffs and dimensions have interacting informational exchange potentials that, as it might be put, LEAK into and out of each other.
It may be possible that such interpenetrating information leakage might have something like subtle energetic holographic forms that might be detected by certain innate super sensitivities innately designed to do so.
In this case, such might give evidence, say, as to how future information leaks into consciousness in holographic forms, even if only in dreams, visions, intuitions, gut-feelings, etc., and sometimes on a quite large scale.
NOTE: One of the best surveys of this kind of leakage is found in PREMONITIONS: A LEAP INTO THE FUTURE by Herbert B. Greenhouse (1971) - which might be studied in connection with THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE by Michael Talbot (1991).
In the sense of all of this, it might turn out that approaches to super sensitivity training might focus on holographic leakage phenomena, but do so in ways that are consistent with the signal-to-noise ratio embodied in Information Theory – accompanied, of course, by the distinct probability that innate Consciousness is innately possessed of super sensitivity capacities that detect and interact with such leakages.
SUGGESTED SOURCES THAT DOCUMENT EXPERIENTIAL SUPER SENSITIVITIES COMPILED EVIDENCE OF SUPER SENSITIVITY LEAKAGES:
THE STORY OF PROPHECY by Henry James Forman (1940). (Rather amazing if not mind-blowing! Also an excellent and gripping read.)
THEY FORESAW THE FUTURE: THE FACINATING STORY OF 6000 YEARS OF FULFILLED PROPHECY by Justine Glass (1969).
COMPILED EVIDENCE OF EXCEPTIONAL HUMAN EXPERIENCE:
EXCEPTIONAL HUMAN EXPERIENCE: STUDIES IN THE PSYCHIC, SPONTANEOUS, IMAGINAL compiled and edited by Rhea A. White, published between 1994-2001 by Exceptional Human Experience Network, 414 Rockledge Road, New Bern, NC 28562, in seventeen volumes consisting of two issues each. Contact routes: ehe.org. Also 252-636-8734. (Extremely professional, abstracts, etc., an extensive encyclopedia of super sensitivity experiencing, the only one in existence so far.)
AN EXPLORATION OF THE "INNER" AND "OUTER" SPACES OF THE SUPERCONSCIOUS STATE:
BREAKTHROUGH TO CREATIVITY: YOUR HIGHER SENSE PERCEPTION by Shafica Karagulla, M.D. (1967). (A down-to-earth, easy to read, clinical narration of super sensitivity dynamics – absolutely terrific.)
Can't help mentioning that the motor cortex is located at top of the brain, the location of the famous Crown Chakra. Google It.