by Ingo Swann

21 April 2002

from BiomindSuperpowers Website

Inside the clandestine workings of large intelligence agencies (such as the CIA, MI6, former KGB, etc.), it is said that some operatives and analysts score very big success rates because they are good at “teasing seven layers of meaning out of any given situation.”

At the opposite end of the spectrum, those who cannot do this teasing may end up plodding and grunting along, perhaps only within the layer that best fits into the limited contexts of their reality boxes.

Reality boxes do exist that perceive only what is immediately obvious, especially those that rely only on the fixed and limited ranges of the physical five senses.


Because the teasing among layers of meaning leads to increases of efficiency, it is well worth trying to consider what it consists of.

At some beginning level, the teasing will have to include deducing what is not obvious, and then deducing what the implications are of what is not obvious.

From there, processes usually referred to as insight and intuition can arise, and perhaps other more subtle kinds of processes that have never been identified.

In conventional terms, deducing is not usually thought of as a superpower. While the physically obvious can of course stimulate deducing, it is largely not a product of the physical five senses but of that aspect of ourselves we refer to as mind.
More specifically, deducing seems to be the product of that aspect of mind referred to as ratiocination, and which, in English, is defined as “a reasoned train of thought resulting in the processes of exact thinking.”

But it is important to know that the term is taken from the Latin RATIOCINATUS meaning “to reckon.”

Definitions for RECKON are given as a somewhat imprecise mixture of: “to count, to estimate, to compute, to calculate, to consider, to regard (i.e., to watch), to judge.”

Reckoning can take place with regard to “determining from a fixed basis.” Or it can take place without a fixed basis - in which event no one can explain how it works.

In that case, definitions of what might be going are handed over to the jurisdiction of the term KEN which in English is defined as: “the range of vision [not eyeball vision]” and “the range of perception, understanding, or knowledge.”

However, one principle source of KEN is the Old Norse language, in which it is defined, in English, as a mix of: “to perceive, to know, to recognize,” with emphasis on “to recognize.”

In contrast to the English definitions, though, a more in-depth study of Old Norse establishes that KENNING was used to refer to:

“the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without rational thought or inference.”

This, of course, is our present definition of INTUITION, an activity-process that usually cannot be accounted for via rational thought or inference.

And, indeed, intelligence analysts who are good at teasing among seven layers of meaning often have a hard time selling their observations and conclusions to their establishments BECAUSE of the difficulty of relating them to rational thought or inference.

Along these lines, it is worth mentioning that although insight is valued if it turns out well, INSIGHT is defined as:

“the power or act of seeing, or penetrating, into a situation” via “the act of apprehending the inner nature of things or of seeing intuitively.”

In other words, by kenning.


One of the purposes of this essay is to bring to light the concept that deducing, insight, and intuition ARE superpowers, although they are not generally recognized as such.

The reason is that those modalities can transcend not only the obvious, but also the limits of rational thought or inference. They can also transcend the limits of the five physical senses, and of physicality per se.

So, there is a modicum or humorous irony involved in discovering that top-dog intelligence analysts and operatives must be employing aspects of those modalities within the great intelligence establishments that otherwise commonly consider them only as giggle-factors.

One could as well add that various kinds of telepathy might factor in alongside deducing, insight, and intuition.

For it might be that top-dog analysts have modicums of that biggest giggle factor modality, too – of course perhaps without their own recognition of it, and certainly never admitting it.

One reason for mentioning this does have to do with teasing seven layers of meaning out of situations.

Well, the kinds of “situations” being referred to always involve not only people but their thoughts, motives, and goals as well. Is this not the case?


If one studies the fascinating arts and crafts of intelligence organizations, it can be seen, in the bigger world picture, things were easier in the past when the five physical senses alone served spies and subsequent analysis of their information quite well.

In that more simple time, the discovery of motives was generally left to the diplomatic services, one of whose jobs was to try to apprehend motives via interchanges at the diplomatic level.

When this actually worked, things went along quite well. But when it didn’t, largely because many real motives could not be penetrated, or were not believed if they were chanced upon, some very sorry outcomes soon followed.

Eventually, the situation got more complicated. Secrecy has always been seen as valuable in the historical sense, but with the advent of modern technological surveillance and detection it became more difficult not only to protect secrecy, but also to detect it.

As we of the present generations have witnessed, this difficulty soon evolved into establishing enormously extensive, and even a morass of ways and means of protecting secrecy not only from technological penetrations, but from diplomatic exchanges, and from spies, analysts, and possible moles as well.

The breadth and depth of all this soon achieved astonishing proportions, so much so that it became increasingly difficult to detect motives, whose motives to detect, or to even to detect if there were any of them at all at loose somewhere in the world.

Any success in secretizing motives, and any failure to detect them (not even a clue), will probably result in some kind of “infamy,” one situation of which we already have lived through.

And THAT comprises several of the layers of meaning that can be teased out of that SITUATION.

We now know that what equates to super-secrecy can prevail and have its complex way among even super-complex conventional modalities of intelligence gathering and analysis.

One reason for this (already discussed in other essays in this website) is not the excellence of anyone involved, but rather that on both sides of any secrecy fence there is extreme reluctance with respect to developing the superpowers of deducing, insight, intuition, and especially of telepathy. Secrecy, and its maintenance, depends on preventing these superpowers from coming into substantial active existence.

Simply put, the threat to secrecy of the enhancement of those giggle-factor kinds of developments means that secrecy manipulating might have a more difficult time of carrying on. It is quite clear that teasing at least seven layers of meaning out of any situation involves recognizing that layers of meaning undoubtedly exist not only with regard to a given situation, but also to all things.

In the case of this present essay, it can be said:

(1) Secrecy exists, obviously and covertly so
(2) Human superpowers also exist
(3) The conventions of secrecy do not want the superpowers to be developed into useful advantages
(4) Therefore, conventional situations following the supposed advantages of secrecy make clever and successful efforts to distort appreciation of superpower evidence
(5) This distorting disables and alienates constructive research and development of superpowers
(6) A superpower vacuum thus comes into existence within the species that possesses raw superpowers; and so the superpowers cannot develop any muscle
(7) Therefore, super-secrecy can proceed - and claim victims among any number of conventional situations that otherwise might oppose it in conventional terms
(8) The principle reason for this is that our species possesses the superpower of cleverness. When mobilized to even a near-perfect degree, it can outwit just about everything, certainly including conventional situations.

Well, above are EIGHT layers of meaning that can be teased out of THAT situation.


Meanwhile, back at the ranch of more mundane human affairs, there is a rather large human tendency to think that what is obvious is really what it seems to be or is accepted as. Thus, it is possible to think that the obvious does exist, and to establish a fair modicum of trust in it.

But behind whatever is accepted, there always exist factors that are not obvious, and human history is littered with plenty of stressful examples of this.

Put more simply, it can turn out that the obvious might not be what you ultimately get – because what you end up getting was not obvious to begin with.

Take scumbaggery, for example. Proficient scumbags would not get very far if it was obvious that they were scumbags.
And, as many have gloomily experienced, it takes something like the fabled superpower called the sixth sense to get a defensive edge on scumbags who are not obviously such, and to do so BEFORE they walk away with, for example, billions of dollars harvested from one’s money, investments, and trust.


The term SCUMBAG came into English use not too long ago, probably about 1971. But it was preceded by older terms having approximately the same meaning, to wit:

“A vulgar term of abuse, but also denoting a despicable person deserving to be despised.”

Along with its earlier companion terms, scumbag is slang, of course. And as such, neither the terms nor their meanings can be officially recognized.

Thus, their meanings can neither enter into philosophical, scientific, or sociological discourse, and so there is no official examination of the phenomena of scumbaggery.

The meanings of the term do not even enter into the versatile conspiracy literature, and astrology has yet to produce studies regarding the astrology of scumbags.

Be all that as it may, scumbags benefit not only from secrecy, but also from the lack of developed superpowers via which they might be detected earlier rather than later.

Here, then, is yet another vacuum regarding the superpowers, and it is largely because of it that many scumbags can rise to important and powerful positions in conventional societies that do not permit the superpowers to grow and flex any muscle.

Scumbaggery is not only a collective of despicable motives. It is also a SITUATION out of which several layers of meaning can be teased.

For example, one possible meaning involves the accepted context that SCUMBAG is a “vulgar” term. So its meanings cannot be incorporated into conventional non-vulgar contexts, EVEN IF its effects and results ultimately prove to be super-vulgar in the extreme – and, in the process of becoming so, simply trash non-vulgar contexts.

Another possible meaning of scumbaggery is that various types of scumbags are always of potential use to power mongers who may need fall-guys when this or that power mongering wobbles a little.

That certainly accounts for instances where scumbags, already partially identified as such, remain in good standing in certain power-mongering circles. There are some rather excellent historical and present examples of this.

Another possible meaning has to do with the avoidance by scumbags of situations in which modicums of deduction, insight, and intuition might be present – and which might result in scumbag discovery.

Yet another possible meaning is that if ostensible superpowers hesitated to deal with scumbaggery simply on the grounds that it is vulgar, then this would result in great joy and satisfaction to all sorts and types of scumbags.

Ultimately, various degrees of scumbag efficiency can be reckoned by the number of victims claimed.

Indeed, any activity in any walk of life that intends to create victims is a format of scumbaggery, in that the more victims that result the more serious and abysmal the formats have been.

The principal reason here for entering so frankly into the contexts of scumbaggery versus the superpowers is that a sort of elitist myth exists about developing the superpowers: to wit, that they can be, or should be, developed only by dealing with the positive AND by avoiding the vulgar.

Well, if scumbaggery did not exist at all, or even too much, then the NEED for activation of the superpowers would not be all that important, would it?

In any event, the positive version of developing the superpowers will not, in the end, evoke lean, mean, superpower fighting machines - even on behalf of the positive version itself.

Indeed, there are several layers of meaning that can be teased out of THAT situation – and which, as a superpower exercise, the reader can attempt to achieve if interested.


NOTE: Some may be interested in viewing a dramatized version in which various meanings are urgently teased out of an important situation. If so, then the recent movie entitled THIRTEEN DAYS, a dramatized recounting of the Cuban missile crisis, is recommended.

The first meaning of that crisis was, at the time, the almost immediate advent of nuclear hostilities on American soil and elsewhere, and it is interesting to watch the detection of other meanings that gradually inched away from that horrifying potential.