by Ingo Swann
06 October 1998
PREPARING THE "MIND"
TO INTEGRATE WITH SUPERPOWER FUNCTIONS
One of the questions most frequently asked has to do with How Can
One LEARN to be "psychic," or learn to manifest some particular
aspect of Psi-Superpower phenomena.
This is the famous "How To" question. On its surface, it seems a
perfectly logical one. And so in answer to it, people expect to be
guided to some kind of tutorial studies that will present a learning
process in some kind of organized, step-by-step fashion.
Thus, a Market for such kinds of tutorial studies comes into
existence, with the result that entrepreneurs and opportunists
design study and instruction programs that encourage people to
variously invest time, effort and substance.
Types of the tutorial programs vary, but they range from rather
long-term studies involving philosophic and metaphysical concepts to
rather short-term efforts that might involve six easy steps.
The quality of the offerings ranges from quite high-minded sincerity
down to and including some rather tawdry programs and not a few
As it is, then, beginning especially about the middle of the
nineteenth century there has accumulated a large, multifaceted and
continuous history regarding this kind of thing. However, that
particular history is not recognized as existing by the mainstream,
while the mainstream also does not recognize the real existence of
the superfaculties involved.
In another sense, the history is also composed of variegated and
eclectic factors. They range from proposed tutorial methodologies
and approaches drawn from Western and Eastern mysticism, occultism,
and spiritualism. Some are drawn from inspired and other-worldly
sources, creativity and self-improvement studies, concepts
established by esoteric and exoteric gurus, various cultic avenues,
and so forth. Large portions of the history are quite complicated,
while other portions consist of over-simplified pap.
Additionally, the whole is laced through and through by combinations
of glamour, hope factors, charismatic sales pitches and high
expectations, and it is not unusual to encounter pompous posturing
and so forth. Thus, the history is quite dense and it is exceedingly
difficult to work one's way through it and make any clear-cut
But it is relatively safe to say that the number of such tutorial
attempts that have COME along is equal to those that have GONE along
-- and among the combined results of their coming and going is a
somewhat obvious absence of achieved superpower activation.
This is almost the same as saying that a great number of efforts
intended to produce positive results have only yielded something of
an extended chain of empty ones.
The first and seemingly most logical interpretation of this is that
the failure rate is high among various kinds of superpower tutorials
-- because the fault is with the tutorials.
There can be no question that this is sometimes the case. But if one
steps back from this accusative interpretation in an attempt to
achieve a broader overview, it can begin to seem quite odd that ALL
the tutorials seem mostly to demonstrate failure rates.
After all, why should all of them incorporate failure?
During the early 1960s, this writer was inspired to research the
so-called "green thumb" phenomenon many demonstrate with regard to
growing and nurturing plants. Although this phenomenon is usually
considered beneath serious interest, it is none the less a quite
As it was, this green-thumb effort extended into a larger study of
the intuitive aspects of farmers, and into the wisdom-lore of
farming as well. Within that lore can be found the ancient axiom
having to do with perfectly good seeds falling into inadequate or
unprepared soil -- after which nothing will happen regarding any
In this sense, the fault is not with the seeds, but rather with what
they fall into.
By analogy, this ancient axiom can be transliterated with regard to
all kinds of superpower tutorials. The tutorials can be likened to
the seeds. It is expected that the tutorials will fall into
"something" wherein they will "grow" and produce their products.
If the sense of this is grokked, then one might study How To
configurations. But if the ground the configurations fall into is
inadequate or unprepared, then nothing (or at least not much) will
On average, most assume that merely learning about something will
somehow result in a product. And if this does not transpire, then
most also assume that the fault is with the learning.
But in better fact, learning has to fall into and interact with
whatever it DOES fall into. If the desired result is not achieved,
then the chances are quite good that the learning has fallen into
grounds inadequate or unprepared -- fallen into grounds that cannot
really accommodate or nourish the seeds.
One of the common traits found within Western concepts of the mind,
as far as study is concerned, is that it accepts anything that can
be presented to it in some kind of rote-learning, easy, step-by-step
In one way, there can be no doubt that this methodology is a proven
process regarding many things. But in another way, it is like the
process of painting a picture by the numbers -- and which processes
may, but probably won't, awaken far more profound and powerful
creativity that are known to exist in all specimens of our species.
In any event, the "mind-ground" that How-To tutorials are expected
to fall into is an aspect hidden behind many kinds of tutorials and
several learning myths, and often hidden behind the cognitive
comprehension of the student as well.
To be sure, this is NOT at all to cast blame or criticism on this or
that individual's mind-ground. Rather, it is to establish that a
situation exists regarding superpower activation which has been left
unexamined and unappreciated with regard to its actual importance.
The fact of the matter, though, is that this kind of situation is
NOT all that unfamiliar. Indeed, many fields requiring operative
functioning also require extensive preparation of the mind -- and
only after which will the operative functioning begin to manifest.
If all of the foregoing is considered as calmly as possible, the
question will ultimately arise regarding what a prepared mind
actually might consist of.
For this, there is no easy How-To answer conveniently at hand. But
it is quite easy to figure out how to make mind UNPREPARED for a
great number of things, or to make it unprepared for anything at
In this sense, all one needs to do is figure out how to confuse
mind, or to shape it so that it functions only in minimal ways --
especially with regard to those two composite cultural items
sometimes referred to as "social norms" and "average intelligence."
Here we encounter a principal clue that probably has great relevance
to the concept of preparing the mind to interact with the superpower
In examining the clue, it is important to admit that the concepts
regarding social norms and average intelligence are of undeniable
importance regarding most societal structures -- since the two
combined incorporate the workhorses upon which the stability such
But it can be demonstrated (as some of the better sociologists have
done) that social norms and average intelligence are themselves
incorporated upon or based in "smaller pictures" or "smaller
Of course, one has to deal with and within smaller pictures all of
the time. They exist, and so there is no shame in doing so.
But, smaller pictures can be socially engineered, as they sometimes
are, so as to exclude, even to forbid, contact with bigger pictures
or bigger realities.
The principal clue referred to above revolves around the idea that
IF the superpower faculties belong within some kind of bigger
picture context, then smaller picture contexts are too limiting and
might act as unrealized cognitive barriers to their functioning.
If such would be the case, then minds prepared only with regard to
smaller picture contexts might need to add bigger picture contexts
in whose soil the seeds regarding the superpower faculties might
better take hold and flourish.
The whole of this might at first seem slightly off the wall. But
there is exemplary precedent for it, and which can easily be
marshaled in support.
One of the longer-term knowledge fall-outs of parapsychology is that
ESP, telepathy, etc., fail to robustly manifest in laboratory
settings, but do manifest in real life situations.
Labs clearly constitute smaller-picture situations -- while real
life situations almost always have some kind of larger-picture
The implication here is that while one might know a great deal about
scientific methods in a laboratory, one might also not know much
about real life phenomena. Therefore, examining real life phenomena
might better prepare the mind to interact with them.
With regard to differences between smaller- and bigger-picture
scenarios, there obviously would exist very many levels and strata
between them. So, there are of course numerous complications that
can arise in discussing them.
But as a general rule of thumb, in their first instance
bigger-picture factors refer to whatever can be seen as universal to
our species entire -- while most smaller-picture situations
incorporate only what is local (non-universal) with regard to
segmented parts within our species entire.
It has already been established in other essays that the superpowers
of the human biomind are universal to our species. This
understanding is based on direct and copious evidence that the
superpower elements spontaneously manifest in all human
civilizations, historic ages, and in all generations.
The superpower faculties therefore transcend all of the above, and
in this sense they can do so only if they are universally inherent
in our species itself.
IDEAS about the superpowers do form up in various cultures and
societies, of course. But in the sense that the dynamic activities
of the superpowers spontaneously manifest in ALL cultures and
societies, well, this can only mean that the activities are
downloading from the species-universal level.
If the above consideration holds water, then merely adapting one's
mind-ground to local (and historically transient) socio-cultural
ideas about them might not serve very well.
All one might end up with is some kind of understanding of the
socio-cultural ideas, but perhaps very little by way of engineering
activation based on any mix of the socio-cultural ideas. In any
event, socio-cultural ideas about the superpowers come and go, and
certainly do go if they don't bear fruit, so to speak.
If the foregoing is somewhat taken on board, one rather typical
response might be to dissect and critique the socio-cultural ideas
in order to discover what's wrong or amiss within them.
But the direction here is not to critique, but to suggest that on
average smaller-picture understandings of the superpowers probably
won't prepare the mind to integrate with phenomena essentially based
in larger-picture perspectives.
The most probable solution here (or at least some full part of it)
is to patiently identify and consider the bigger-picture
Otherwise, the mind prepared to interact only within smaller-picture realities will not become enabled to effect the catalysts
and syntheses that are required to make dynamic transitions from
smaller-to bigger-picture functioning.
Back to Contents
SPECIES AS A BIGGER PICTURE
As readers of this website will understand, the whole of its
contents are based upon actual research and experience that have
spanned at least forty years by now.
A greater part of this research involved endless experimenting and
testing in laboratories, and which, at one point, yielded a
tutorial-training program that demonstrated a good deal of positive
The reasons for achieving positive results need to be entered into
and integrated within the line-up of the information contained in
this website. In attempting to do so, however, one particular
detrimental phenomenon must always be kept in mind.
As with everything that is wonderful, it is always detrimental to
synopsize, shorten, and down-size whatever is involved into easy,
how-to terms. The process of making things easy to understand has
its valid place, of course. But this is appropriate only AFTER all
that is involved has been made completely visible or brought to
The detrimental part of making things easy to understand is that via
the reductionist process of doing so, any number of important
factors and nuances usually have to be ejected from the down-sizing
line-up. And this reductionist process is especially unrewarding in
those cases where a bigger rather than a smaller amount of factors
need constantly to be carried in mind.
In this sense, then, BEGINNING a study of something by depending on
a down-sized, simplified version of it can easily end up locking the
mental processes within the down-sized, simplified version. But this
is approximately the same as becoming locked into the peripheries of
a smaller picture of something.
In the past, this writer had the opportunity of personally knowing
several "natural psychics" and also took the opportunity to study
autobiographical out-pourings of others. In addition merely to
satisfy my simple fascination with them, one goal was to discover
what they had in common within their personality structures.
As I had encountered it during the 1960s, the general consensus in
psychical research and later parapsychology was that they had not
much in common -- since beyond certain similar egotistical
manifestations, their personalities were extremely varied otherwise.
Indeed, most parapsychologists had little interest in the
personalities of such individuals -- somewhat because the
parapsychologists were interested in Psi phenomena, not in people.
One excuse several times given to ME was that the psychics couldn't
articulate themselves very well, and so it was impossible to
understand what they were talking about.
Well, it is somewhat the duty of researchers to penetrate any
surface problems of articulation, and attempt to perceive the person
The psychics had one important factor in common, and once it is
pointed up it is not all that difficult to identify it.
They all demonstrated a wide or large overview of things -- each in
their own particular way, of course, but none the less a factor
rather consistently present within them as an identifiable group.
(This factor will be fleshed out in other essays and chapters in
this website. Here, it is only necessary to point it up within the
contexts of smaller pictures versus bigger pictures.)
The implication was that their larger overview of things might
somehow be associated with their Psi functioning, and might also
contribute to understanding something as to why they were variously
alienated from many aspects of the world around them.
As it turned out, the alienation aspect made things easier rather
than harder, for it was quickly possible to associate it with a
number of entirely respectable sources having to do with social
One of these, perhaps the enduring best one, was Colin Wilson's very
remarkable and enormously acclaimed book
THE OUTSIDER (1956). In
this book (and with articulation so elegant it has seldom been
matched), Wilson sets forth the "anatomy" of The Outsider.
But he does so not only from the point of view that the outsider is
representative of the conventional idea of a misfit, but he also
sets forth what the outsider won't and can't fit into.
Transliterating Wilson's observations into the concept-lingo of
these essays, the central problem encapsulating outsiders is that
their overview of things is bigger than the smaller social pictures
they otherwise would be expected to fit into.
Wilson postulated, with some degree of accuracy, that most social
environments don't really contain much in the way of visionary
elements. He describes this visionary lack as largely down-loading
from average mainstream social reluctance to deal with factors that
might upset conventional social balances. Wilson's "visionaries"
won't and can't fit into the conventions, and thus achieve the
status of "Outsider."
Wilson's book was one of the first to focus not only on the
so-called psychological "maladjustments" of visionaries, but also to
quite thoroughly examine the limiting psychological maladjusting
processes of social groupings. It is clearly "suggested reading" for
anyone truly interested in the superpower faculties.
Although Wilson didn't employ the concepts of smaller and bigger
pictures, these two analogies are interchangeable with his visionary
and non-visionary ones.
While the conceptual characteristics of visionaries and psychics
might not be exactly the same, they do overlap, and both involve the
same problems attendant upon smaller pictures versus bigger
Here, then, is uncovered the somewhat invisible background noise
(1) what does and doesn't fit into what; and
distinctions between smaller and bigger pictures, and their
By now is uncovered a fatal flaw in the modern, Western concepts of Psi.
Many parapsychologists themselves have acknowledged that the modern
evolution of the concepts of Psi and etc., compartmentalized them
too narrowly away from the general category of life processes.
But as one might interpret, this is almost the same as saying that
the compartmentalization resulted in smaller pictures -- perhaps
really tight ones, and which became really up-tight as their overall
failure ratio became more and more evident.
In any event, and with all the foregoing now having been stated, if
one attempts to utilize a smaller-picture module to train and
develop something that actually needs a bigger-picture module, it is
possible to say that the handwriting regarding failure is already on
This can neatly be put another way by invoking the analogies of
SYSTEMS, SYSTEMS WORKABILITY, and SYSTEMS FAILURE. (NOTE: A separate
set of essays on the topic of systems is forthcoming.)
As a passing observation here, it is not unusual to find topics
being dealt with in a certain context -- when, in a bigger reality
they actually belong in another context.
For example, in the cultural West, and by broadly accepted
definition and understanding, Psi factors have been dealt with as
"mental abilities of gifted individuals." Attempts by designing
training to trigger the Psi-mental abilities into functioning have
not succeeded very much, if at all.
Since such efforts have almost a total failure rate, there is no
harm suggesting that Psi factors are not mental abilities, but are
systems functions regarding modules of awareness.
If this would be the case, then the situation has to do with
identifying and activating the proper module of awareness.
Indeed, mental abilities cannot produce products that download from
awarenesses which the same mental abilities don't conceptualize as
This can be put another way. Mental abilities are, of course,
wonderful. But that they and their products are based on modules of
awareness is quite clear. After all, mental abilities can process
only to the degree that various modules of awareness are actively
Other modules of awareness that have never been activated, or
somehow have been stupefied and deadened, cannot contribute anything
All of the foregoing has been discussed in order to help construct a
bigger picture regarding the superpowers, and which picture has
somewhat to be in place before training in superpower details can
proceed toward a success potential. (This particular concept is
henceforth to be restated in several ways so as to locate important
different nuances that go along with it.)
Returning now to the topic of the natural psychics, it was pointed
up that they tended to have wide or large overviews of things.
It was THIS that they had difficulty in articulating, especially if
required to do so within the confines modernist psychical and
parapsychological concepts and lingo. To my knowledge, no Psi
researcher EVER ASKED a psychic to write out their worldviews.
One aspect that downloaded over time from most (but not all) of the
psychics I talked with was that they felt that the superpower
faculties existed within everyone, but that the faculties did not
develop into activity in most.
This was not merely fashionable, democratizing chit-chat on their
parts -- in that they could SENSE-FEEL as much in most people they
encountered. Their convictions along these lines emerged from their
bigger worldviews, not from mere intellectual conditioning.
In the sense that "EVERYONE" was expressed, this of course refers
not the vast conglomerate of all people, but rather to Our Species
out of which each of us downloads. Indeed, if everyone has the
faculties, either deadened or active, then the faculties are
inherent in our species.
And so it is within the greater context of our species that we will
find the bigger-picture systemic contexts for the superpower
And thus, we FINALLY arrive in the proximity of the central topic of
this essay -- and which is a centerpiece of some kind that reflects
through all the contents of this website.
As to the topic of this essay itself, although one can easily have
an assumption that a great deal is understood about our species, the
more basic fact is that what is NOT understood looms like a gigantic
fog filled with unexplained mysteries.
For a number of reasons, the existence of the fog is often
minimized, one reason being that people don't like to think in terms
of fogs. Even so, complications descending out of the fog are real
In order to help penetrate at least a short distance into the fog,
one can discern three initial reasons for making the attempt to do
(1) A double question can be
(a) whether enhanced
understanding of the superpowers (and their functioning) can
be found within the contexts of smaller pictures
(b) whether the superpowers belong, so to speak, within the
contexts of a bigger picture that is commodious enough to
include ALL aspects of the human species entire
(2) It can easily be established
that neither the existence nor the phenomena of the superpowers
are officially incorporated into conventional, modern
conceptualizations of our species.
Indeed, without too much effort, it can be brought to light that
various forces modulating the conventional concepts work not
only to diminish FUNCTIONAL knowledge of the superpowers, but to
disenfranchise them as meaningful species attributes.
(3) As already mentioned, modern conceptualizations in large
part tend to focus on awful, sicko and unfortunate aspects of
our species -- with the result that these are over-emphasized
and end up negatively suffusing a larger cognitive understanding
of what our species actually consists of otherwise.
By comparison, although the higher, more
astonishing attributes of our species are sometimes referred to in
some idealizing manner, active pursuit and enhancement of them is
rare. One obvious reason for this might be that idealizing might not
be completely and effectively based on its real processes and
With the foregoing having been more or less preambled, it can be
mentioned that most efforts to describe our species usually begin by
rehashing what is conventionally known and/or accepted.
This approach is not without its merits. But in several ways it
rather tends to plunge one into limited smaller-picture concepts.
Indeed, if one is up to identifying (or admitting) what is NOT
understood (or even known) about our species is quite large compared
to what is known, then what is known obviously must constitute some
kind of smaller rather than larger possible picture.
Various dimensions of this can best by grasped by considering the
One of the unique factors of our species is that it possesses both
intelligence and mental faculties sufficient enough to make attempts
to explain not only itself, but to explain existence per se.
Many might miss the utterly remarkable nature of this unique factor,
especially if their awareness is fixed into lower-order levels where
it has little meaning.
But, to the extent that all Earthside species are so far understood,
ours is the only one that possesses this quality, and possesses it
on a species-wide level.
Furthermore, our species is the only one that has built enormous,
even fabulous societal and cultural edifices in this regard.
This unique factor takes on even greater amazement by virtue of a
secondary but none the less astonishing fact: that where and when
our existing is not really understood, our species entire anyway
proceeds to invent or imagine this or that kind of "understanding."
It is possible to consider that ALL invented or imagined
understandings along these lines are smaller-picture ones, and this
no matter their status otherwise. If this would be the case, then
WHAT makes the understandings is a bigger picture than the
By far and large, conventional pictures regarding the nature of our
species usually first focus on the bio-bodies that are thought to
There can be little doubt that human bio-bodies are an astonishing
example of biological engineering, whether this be natural,
evolutionary, artificial, or the achievement of some otherwise
Our species also possesses one rather astonishing factor that is
seldom identified, much less discussed, but which can easily bring
into question all conventional explanations of our origin.
Our species is endowed with elements and faculties far, far beyond
what are needed merely for survival Earthside, and even for mere
survival of the species itself within Earthside environments.
This is explicitly to say that in its greater collective sense at
least, our species is thus strategically over-endowed for the
purposes of mere survival. And this aspect lifts our species out of
the line-up of all other species which are precisely, directly and
brusquely endowed for survival.
This single factor establishes that there is some kind of very great
distance between our species and all other Earthside species, and
this clearly opens up the question of the actual origin of our
Of course, many smaller picture answers to this question have been
provided, have had their day and their smaller histories. But, as
will be partially discussed in the next essay, all of them have been
provided by negating the fact that there is an enormous distance
between our species and all others.
For some possible clarity here, most efforts to comprehend our
species focus on our similarities to other species, not on how
utterly different our species is from them.
In any event, as a result of being over-endowed merely for survival,
our species possess a great number of faculties that it hardly uses.
But the essentials of them are none the less replicated from
generation to generation, and in each of which signature elements of
the essentials spontaneously flare-up, and are experienced.
The real existence of these essentials can easily be determined not
only by their spontaneous flaring up.
Not only do the extraordinary essentials spontaneously flare up, but
many social subsets of our species recognizably put dampers on
varieties of these faculties -- or at least many social workings
refuse to endorse and support their functioning -- and which is the
same as admitting the existence of what is being denied support and
One hypothetical way of conceptualizing the above is to speculate
that our over-endowed species could activate 100 per cent of its
powers. In fact, thought, many societal norms only encourage
utilization of only about less than 10 per cent of them.
But this factoid only heightens what is perhaps one of the greater
of all human mysteries.
Why would a species possess faculties that, on average, it doesn't
In other words, why would the species basis for those faculties
have become installed in the first place -- IF they were never meant
to be activated and used in the same first place?
Here it must be mentioned that the panorama and peripheries of the
above are made somewhat hard to discern and articulate -- because
our same remarkable species possesses a number of rather influential
small-picture-making attributes that can easily get in the way.
For example, consider the triple penchant for societal reductionism,
uniformism, and conformity. Additionally, one might consider the
social stabilizing mechanisms having to do with erecting LIMITS
regarding proper and improper formats of consciousness, awareness,
experiencing and thinking.
All such pseudo-formats of course refer to how human intelligence is
to be managed within this or that smaller-picture framework.
As it is, though, the immediately foregoing somewhat serves as small
introduction to what is obviously one of the chief and central
elements of our species.
This central element has to do with the rather mysterious fact that
our over-endowed species does exist on Earthside. But it is
principally and unmistakably existing not simply as a biological
organism, but completely and unquestionably existing as a quite
remarkable, even elegant intelligence-system.
Indeed, if this aspect is SUBTRACTED from the marvelous bio-bodies,
then not only is mere survival of the latter brought into serious
questioning, but one can well wonder what would be left over after
the subtraction might somehow be effected.
There are, believe it or not, some indications of what might be left
over -- in that certain societal systems make efforts to erode and
suppress intelligence, thus enabling us at least some insight as to
what could be left over.
There is, of course, some confusion as to whether body-system or
intelligence-system is the prime factor of the human species.
The human body-system is undeniably astonishing. And it is true that
its elements are more clear-cut than the human intelligence-system.
But, it is also quite obvious that both somehow fit within each
other, and this factor obviously has some fundamental kind of
However, the nature of the fitting cannot really be achieved via
over-emphasis only on the physical body-systems. Even if the
physical emphasis would be expanded to its largest degree, still the
only thing that would result is one-half the picture -- and one-half
a picture is smaller than the full picture to be sure.
Within this confusion, however, the evidence is quite good that
human body-system subtracted from human intelligence-system leaves
the former flopping about and usually in deplorable, disgusting and
Thus, it is possible to assume, hypothetically anyway, that our
species intelligence-system attributes constitute its prime
This can be put another somewhat more personal way -- in that it is
possible to suggest that WHATever specimens of our species might
think, it is most likely that they CAN think that is our species
But here we indeed run into the first of a series of major
problem-situations -- in that our history demonstrates that it is
difficult even to approximate what a biomind intelligence-system
Even to begin getting into this topic, it is necessary to
(1) the inherent existence of
the human intelligence-system per se, and,
(2) whatever descends out of it as thought-products.
This distinction is to suggest that the
human intelligence-system is a THINKING THING out of which, and
because of which, thought-things are produced. In this sense, then,
the intelligence-system is greater than what it produces, no matter
how much the products are held in esteem.
One important factor that can be noted regarding the above is that
many maps have been made of what the intelligence-system produces.
But the actual nature and basic configurations of the
intelligence-system itself has more or less remained unmapped.
Moving briskly along beyond the above quagmires combined, it is now
meaningful to make a distinction about our species which has not
been made in the past with any enduring clarity.
This distinction is a subtle one, and has to do with the differences
(1) what our species IS, and
(2) what our species CONSISTS
While (1) and (2) can easily be intellectually collapsed into each
other and be taken as meaning much the same thing, there are in fact
some important nuances between them.
For starters, in the past the concept of our species was assumed to
consist of, and be defined by, all physical bodies that could
interbreed with each other -- or at least had the potential if not
the preference to do so.
This is to say that all human bodies WERE our species in its greater
However, an important and concept-shifting nuance regarding this has
entered into the overall picture, due to advances in the genetic
In a more strict sense, and in the first instance, our species is no
longer really comprised merely of all physical human bodies, but of
the genetic pool out of which each physical-body specimen emerges.
This might be put another way. Our species IS the genetic pool (the
GENOME) of our species, of which each individual is a manifesting,
down-loading intelligence-system encased, as it were, in its
particular bio-format. The particular bio-format is referred to as a
GENOTYPE within the GENOME (the entire gene pool).
Technically speaking, and specifically with regard to the genome,
each manifesting biomind individual is a quite small part -- if
compared to the greater genetic whole which incorporates billions of
As a somewhat grumpy aside here, it bruises the ego of many to
consider themselves merely as a manifesting smaller part of the
greater on-going genome. However, this psycho-factoid might explain
something as to why many biomind specimen members of humanity seldom
care to consider humanity as a whole.
Indeed, it can be noted, with some factual accuracy, that the
concept of humanity, as traditionally mounted, has always been more
idealizing and abstract than functionally meaningful.
One understandable reason for this is that the individual biomind
specimens that descend out of the generic genome of our species are
not exact duplicates of each other. Each is different in any number
of outer surface aspects, and which range along a scale of
The differences are more obvious than the species sameness aspects
-- since the samenesses (and their extent) are sort of cloaked
behind the differences.
Throughout recorded human history, some few astute observers have
noticed that the samenesses are probably more important than the
surface differences -- if only in that the samenesses are enduring
and transcend the generations.
But in large part, the differences are what people deal with on a
day-to-day basis, whether these are natural or artificially encoded
in social behavior.
Because of this it is not too much to say that the matter of the
differences has frequently been elevated (or inflated) to the
sometimes giddy heights of philosophical, theological, scientific
and sociological importance.
Indeed, in the past this author was told by three important
scientists that the study of differences was the principal path
toward accelerating progress in understanding the human framework --
and FURTHERMORE, that the study of the samenesses was merely a study
Differences clearly have importance and meaning. But this is no real
reason for not undertaking, or for culturally suppressing, in-depth
studies regarding the samenesses upon which the backbone of our
species is clearly founded.
Here again, if one over-emphasizes the differences, one is dealing
in one-half the human picture -- and one-half is a smaller picture
than the whole shebang is.
As an aside, though, there does exist one-behind-the-scenes reason
why the matter of human differences achieves over-emphasized
Most social structures depend on differences with regard to a number
of factors -- one of which is that differences contribute to social
stratification, and to the ease the stratification can be maintained
even if only artificially so. This may be one reason why our species
sameness factors are marginalized, if not completely ignored
If one delves into the sameness factors of our species, one can
easily begin to comprehend that the difference factors are, so to
speak, the frosting on the cake while the sameness factors are the
At the individual level, one can expect to encounter various kinds
and designs of the frosting. But the deeper one goes into the
sameness factors, one can begin to discover the central frameworks
upon which the species is built, and which ALL specimens of our
species directly share in.
A central clue here is that the sameness factors can and do
differentiate into various kinds of differences. But by far and
large they do so mostly because, as it were, of cultural-social
nurture rather than because of all-encompassing nature. There is a
saying I read somewhere now forgotten, but easily remembered:
"Nature provides; men demarcate among what is provided."
Another clue is that if one begins to become somewhat knowledgeable
about our species sameness factors, it is possible to begin
comprehending that those factors trend toward the awesome, toward
the amazing and the utterly remarkable.
As but one very significant example, all human specimens of our
species are born with the language factor. This language factor is
operative and ready to function from birth, and infants aggressively
begin coping with at some point quite early during their first year.
To speak language is clearly taken for granted, and is usually
assumed as representative of one of those "redundant" samenesses
that are of little interest.
However, the inherent, or indwelling, language factor is present in
all specimens of our species, and thus must be assumed as
representative of one of our species prime backbones contributing to
the vast distances between ourselves and all other Earthside
For additional clarity here, within all social contexts, as
different as they might be, the language factor is universally
considered as the ability to communicate.
This is obviously the case -- but with one important proviso. The
ability to communicate is down-loaded FROM the language factor. It
is not the factor itself, and this is now scientifically understood
beyond any doubt.
There is quite an awesome story involved here. But little of it
depends on what had been understood about languages before rather
The July 1993 issue of LIFE magazine featured a write-up regarding
"The Amazing Minds of Infants." The magazine's cover announced in
bold print that,
"BABIES are SMARTER than you THINK. They can ADD
before they can COUNT. They can UNDERSTAND a hundred words before
they can SPEAK. And, at three months, their powers of MEMORY are far
greater than we ever imagined."
The article itself consisted of a brief overview of what had
recently been learned about infants in the research fields of
memory, mathematics, language, and physics.
The article is quite short, but liberally laced with
thought-stopping statements. For example, in the physics category,
Cornell University researcher Elizabeth Spelke,
"is finding that
babies as young as four months have a rudimentary knowledge of the
way the world works -- or should work."
"Researchers speculate that even before birth, babies
learn how physical objects behave by moving their body parts, but Spelke believes the knowledge is innate."
The concept of "innate knowledge" pre-existing within infants is
touched upon with regard to each of the four categories -- even
though the modern idea of knowledge refers to having acquired it by
experience and study AFTER birth, and then only by kinds of logical
reasoning that start concretizing later in childhood.
Indeed, in the modern cultural West, the working definition of
KNOWLEDGE is given as,
"the fact or condition of knowing something
with familiarity or understanding through experience or
Thus, there is a nervous discrepancy between,
(1) the definition of
knowledge acquired through experience or association, and
concept of innate knowledge.
The discrepancy centers on the definition of INNATE, the first
definition of which is "inherent: belonging to the essential nature
A second definition is also usually provided -- "originating in or
derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather
than from experience or association."
The subtle magnitude of this nervous discrepancy has two major
parts, both of which can become visible only to those somewhat
familiar with the serious denial, during the modern twentieth
century, of innate KNOWLEDGE.
During this epoch, the possibility of innate human instincts was
occasionally, although usually grudgingly, admitted. But the concept
of innate KNOWLEDGE was a topic too close to the forbidden topics of
inspired, received, clairvoyant, telepathic, intuitive or
extrasensory knowledge -- all of these tending to manifest in the
absence of experience and association, and even in the absence of
logic and reason.
Second, the concept of innate KNOWLEDGE arouses the tremendously
complex problem of how and why KNOWLEDGE, of all things, should have
been innately installed in the human species in the first place.
Returning to the LIFE magazine article, the squib regarding LANGUAGE
was short, but quite a show-stopper.
First, it must be established here that the origin of human
languages has always been a very great mystery. During the modern
scientific period, it was often pictured that language originated
from cavemen grunts and gesticulations -- followed by the concept
that over longish periods of time these gradually evolved
differently in different parts of the world into many different
However, according to the LIFE magazine article, something else is
involved that can strategically alter the above picture if one takes
time to consider it.
The "something else" is that psychologist Patricia Kuhl of the
University of Washington in Seattle indicated that from birth to
four months, babies are "universal linguists" capable of
distinguishing each of the 150 sounds that make up all human speech.
(NOTE: UNIVERSAL in this sense means present in everyone.)
During this period, and before they begin learning words, babies are
busy sorting through the jumble of the 150 sounds in search of the
ones that have meaning. By about six months, they have "begun the
metamorphosis into specialists who recognize the speech sounds of
their native tongue."
This process of "sorting through the humble of 150 sounds" sounds
something like a language analyzer or decoder more than it sounds
like a language learning process.
To get at the import of the above, one needs to consider the
following with some attention.
That all human languages (Earthside) are made up of 150 sounds has
been understood for some time. A fair share of these sounds are
utilized to build up the speech sounds of a local language system.
The long-held conventional idea then has it that the babe learns
(in-takes, acquires) the sounds by repetitive exposure and practice
and begins to duplicate them. The babe is thus seen as learning from
external local language factors -- and in this sense languages are
Now, from a superficial viewpoint this explains why there are and
have been so many different local languages. But it doesn't really
explain why language is a universal principle within all specimens
born of the human species.
Different local languages constitute smaller-picture aspects of
great and awesome language penchant of our species. The information
that all languages are made up of 150 sounds helps enlarge the
picture. Thus, if the language formats are indeed different in
different sectors, the sounds of which they are made none the less
constitute a universal language factor that is neigh on identical
throughout the species.
That all babies possess some sort of a system that is capable of
distinguishing each of the 150 sounds literally means that babes are
not principally learning language from external sources, but rather
are merely distinguishing which arrangements of the sounds are being
spoken external to them.
This is almost the same as saying that babes don't LEARN a language
system, but merely recognize which language system is going on about
The language factor within the species entire could thus be
described as a system of sound recognition that is recombinant
regarding at least the 150 sounds all human speech consists of.
It now needs to be emphasized that while languages are different,
each human specimen possesses in a same way one of these recombinant
sound-recognition systems. Furthermore, in each specimen the system
is automatically active at birth, perhaps even before (as some
researchers are beginning to suggest.)
One neat way of putting this is that each language is but a software
program installed into the built-in hard drive language system that
is innate in each individual. The hard drive language system is the
same in every one, or at least relatively so.
For the purposes of this series of essays, it could be said that all
software programs are smaller-picture kinds of things -- whereas the
hard drives that they get installed into constitute rather larger
Another grumpy observation: regarding this, it rather has to be
admitted that all social systems tutor their inhabitants to think in
terms of their different smaller software pictures -- and thus it is
easy enough to be oblivious to the rather majestic nature of our
hard drive capabilities.
Analogous to this, it does need to be understood that smaller
pictures ARE smaller not because of what they contain, but what they
The "universal language" factor of our species is some kind of a
example lesson in point here -- in that it is capable of containing
and dealing with ALL human languages (including dialects, etc.) of
which there have been many, many thousands. The languages are
smaller-picture components of the larger-picture universal
In any event, for the purposes of these essays, it is apparent that
our species, in its hard-drive sense, universally is made up of an
intelligence system, and which in turn clearly functions in tandem
with a universal language system.
However, if we conceptualize an intelligence system, it is possible
to conclude that it would need at least two other universal,
hard-drive systems in order to be more completely functional: a
system of sensing mechanisms, and a system of meaning recognition.
These two additional systems could not possibly be composed only of
software programs locally decided upon, but, in some kind of fact,
would need to consist of hard-drive factors that incorporates both
the species entire as well as all of its down-loading individual
The REAL universal existence of the (hard drive) meaning recognition
thing has been deduced by virtue of studying language in babies.
As psychologist Patricia Kuhl pointed up in the LIFE magazine
"long before infants actually begin to learn words, they
can sort through a jumble of spoken sounds in search of the ones
that have meaning."
How meaning recognition works in the pre-verbal level is not as
completely understood as is the universal sound thing. This is to
say that while all languages might be composed of 150 sounds, the
same can't really be said about all meanings.
None the less, the implication is that each specimen of our species
has some generic kind of hard-drive meaning-recognition system.
This system functions in tandem with the hard-drive intelligence
system, the sensing mechanism systems, and the language system. All
four of these supersystems (as it were) can be seen as universal to
the species, AND to each individual born of it. And these are very
astonishing samenesses, indeed.
The whole of this is quite awesome -- if one can grok it. But the
grokking can sometimes be difficult in this regard -- because of
smaller-picture interference patterns.
These not only lurk about just about everywhere in societal
force-fed kinds of ways, but are sometimes mistaken as big pictures,
even if unthinkably so.
If one is interested in learning and development, it is not unusual
to suppose that whatever seems to be interfering should be
deconstructed and gotten rid of.
Indeed, if the superpowers of the human biomind belong to the
universal supersystems and not to some local, smaller-picture
concept, then one might undergo the urge to reject, abolish or
demolish the latter.
But there is a problem here. Rejecting some smaller-picture thing is
itself a smaller-picture phenomenon. It might stretch some mental
muscle to consider it, but it can easily be demonstrated that
smaller-pictures can universally be identified by what they reject,
don't include, omit, jump over, rationalize away, or simply by what
is not known within them.
In other words, it is difficult to achieve bigger-picture awareness
by following the pathways that lead to smaller-picture constructing.
And here we encounter a somewhat amusing, but none the less great
oddity of our species.
Our species is awash in smaller pictures, and many piss and snarl
because of it. And so many make rather invidious efforts to trash
whatever this or that they consider a smaller picture.
The oddity here is that smaller-picture trashing can be akin to
jousting with windmills -- IF one doesn't know much about the
criteria for smaller-picture constructing. This is to ask WHY IS a
smaller picture a smaller picture -- and how can a smaller picture
be recognized as one.
After all, if one wants to escape from anything, one needs somewhat
precisely to know what one is desiring to escape from.
Back to Contents
IDENTIFY SOME DYNAMICS OF SMALLER-PICTURE FORMATS
If one is to conceptualize any kind of tutorials or training with
regard to activating superpower faculties, one has to consider
almost from the outset that "reality shifts" are going to be
Two general assumptions in this regard are to be found, and both of
them are usually left unexamined and thus not understood very well.
The first assumption revolves around the idea that if the student is
presented with organized information regarding the superpowers, then
the needed reality shifts will occur within the student.
The second assumption involves the idea that if the needed reality
shifts do not occur, then the difficulty lies within the
responsiveness of the student.
In observable fact, the two assumptions can be appropriate in most
(1) delivery of the organized information is the key
step and issue of the training, and
(2) IF the organization of the
information first and only pertains to factors external to the
In other words, adjustments among the student’s inner realities (and
mental equipment) will somehow take place with regard to
incorporating the organized information about the external
factors—and needed reality shifts, if they are required, will more
or less occur without much further ado.
The whole of this particular concept is centered on the idea that
in-take of information alone will result in learning. As mentioned
elsewhere in other essays, this type of teaching methodology has
without doubt demonstrated its effectiveness. But, it might be
added, only within the particular criteria as given above.
This is the dominant concept of teaching-learning in the modernist
cultural West, and as such is composed of three aspects:
(2) delivery of organized information about outer factors
However, with regard to activating the superpower faculties, the
principal basis of what is involved is, in the first place, NOT
external to the student.
So, whereas the existing condition and extent of the student’s inner
realities can be minimalized in the Western concept, the status of
the student’s inner realities now takes on essential importance—and
does so as a first order of business.
The principle goal of activating the superpower faculties is, so to
speak, to ENERGIZE or AWAKEN faculties that already exist within the
inner realities of the student, but remain latent or deadened, and
thus are non-experiencable within the scope of the student’s
concretized awareness margins.
The faculties remain latent or deadened because the student’s
awareness peripheries and inner realities are somehow structured so
as to exclude direct cognitive contact with them.
As long as this excluding structuring remains in place, no amount of
organized information about the superpowers will serve to go very
It is clearly to be realized that there are strategic differences
between the concept of inner awakening and the concept of rote
learning via organized information regarding outer factors.
It is also to be realized that EACH individual possesses some kind
of concretized inner reality structure—and by even superficial
observation it can be realized that each individual’s inner reality
structure is different. And as everyone discovers sooner or later,
everyone tends to cling to their concretized realities—and often do
so come hell or high water.
One direct meaning here is that each individual WILL process all
information through their existing mental information processing
grids. Thus, information of any kind, whether external or internal,
will be reconfigured to fit within those grids, and what doesn’t fit
will be excluded and disposed in a wide variety of ways.
Now, one might at first consider the foregoing as alien to all
concepts of human learning. But in fact it represents a situation
that has been familiar in Asia since antiquity. This is the guru-chela
relationship, and which has been translated into Western languages
But a more exact rendering is guru-awakener, chela-awakenee. The
interactive dynamic between them is founded on the understanding
that it is very difficult for the chela to self-awaken since the
chela is encapsulated within the limits of his or her concretized
Such concretized realities include various kinds of excluding
mechanisms that inhibit activation of awareness of WHAT IS outside
of the excluding mechanisms. As long as the excluding mechanisms
remain in place, what it outside of them will remain non-experiencable
and thus invisible.
In the Eastern context, the principle function of the awakener (the
guru) is two-fold:
to present information about WHAT IS, and
the awakenee to become cognizant of his or her particular inner
excluding mechanisms and thus transcend them.
In this sense, there is almost always a one-to-one, and somewhat
time-consuming relationship between guru and chela. So how-to
presentation of information meant to be in-taken "by the millions"
is not really workable in this regard—although such information can
serve as extensive background considerations.
One factor that is important in this regard is that in the classical
sense the guru clearly recognizes the importance, meaning and value
of the chela as an individual entirely capable of awakening to and
attaining bigger and more extensive peripheries of awareness.
The express and well-advertised purpose of doing so is to enable the
chela to in-take and participate in larger realities—with the
important proviso that if the mental excluding factors are not
identified and transcended then any "knowledge" of the larger
realities will merely remain superficially intellectual.
There now downloads from the foregoing the question involving where
and how the mental excluding factors are to be found and identified.
A careful study of Eastern literature in this regard establishes
that the major source of the excluding factors is the mental
adaptation to local social factors, and which social factors do not
take much cognizance of bigger realities.
The essence of this can be transliterated to the concept of smaller
pictures versus bigger pictures—in that if the individual is
oriented majorly within smaller pictures, then in many a sense the
mind oriented in the smaller pictures is not prepared to access into
Indeed, a smaller picture can be identified by what it excludes, and
so it is of little wonder that individuals who adapt to them erect
inner mental exclusion factors appropriate to whatever smaller
picture is involved.
To now begin to get deeper into this, it is worthwhile establishing
the definitions of PICTURE. Beyond identifying that a picture is an
illustrations of something, most dictionaries give the following:
As a noun—"A portrayed description so vivid or graphic as to suggest
a mental image or give an idea of something"
As a verb—"To form a mental image" or, as might be added, to form a
It is also worth noting that PICTURESQUE is defined as "evoking
In turn, EVOKE is defined as "to call forth or summon up; to
Moving a bit beyond the established definitions, a picture is also a
FRAME OF REFERENCE:
"A set, format, formulation or system (as of
facts or ideas) serving to orient or give particular meaning."
A frame of reference also has a FRAMEWORK, this defined as:
structure (as of ideas); a skeletal, openwork, or structural frame."
AN EXAMPLE OF A BIGGER PICTURE
Any even minimally competent
assessment of the superpowers throughout the world easily
establishes that the faculties are found world-wide, species-wide,
and as having a transcultural basis.
This transcultural basis implies that the superpowers are existing
in both a generic and a universal sense. And indeed, via comparative
cultural studies, some researchers and writers have partially
undertaken to examine and account for them in this light.
The concept of "universal" carries a connotation that seems rather
consistently to be missed or ignored. "Universal" implies bigger,
even the biggest picture. By implication, therefore, the functional
basis of the superpowers would seem to belong within that bigger
DESCENDING FROM BIGGER INTO SMALLER
At first this might sound like some kind of gobbledygook—until it
dawns that something that essentially and dynamically belongs within
a bigger picture might not manifest very well, or at all, into
One perfectly logical reason for this might be that smaller picture
activity doesn’t actually NEED bigger picture phenomena. This reason
has a good amount of evidence behind it.
And so (as will be elaborated throughout this series of essays) it
can be shown that bigger picture phenomena are usually EDITED OUT of
smaller picture contexts, so as to protect the supposed integrity of
those smaller contexts and realities.
SMALLER AND BIGGER PICTURE FORMATS
OF AWARENESS AND CONSCIOUSNESS
In any event, one can wonder,
for example, how well the superpowers might activate or function in
a mind, awareness, or consciousness that is centered or locked into
smaller picture contexts.
This kind of thing has something to do with how one’s mind has been
prepared or set to function.
Out of this, of course, comes the idea of MINDSET—which refers to a
mind or a group of them centered or locked into a "picture" which is
different from what other minds are locked into.
It is to be noted that the concept of mindsets has positive AND
downer connotations, somewhat depending on which mindset is
inspecting other mindsets.
Now, it can be said that our species, in the face of its many truly
astonishing wonders, is quite excellent at setting up and nourishing
small, limited mindsets of various kinds.
It is true that these are somewhat recombinant with each other. But
the sum of the recombining still ends up Small and Limited—with the
result that it is difficult to fit Universals into them.
Elaborating slightly, from a purely sociological overview, the
proliferation of smaller, limited, or local mindsets accounts for
the cultural sectoring of our species.
The cultural sectoring accounts, in turn, for the various different
and usually conflicting societal formats one tends to encounter if
one ventures into something so near as the next county or the next
All specimens of our species live within some kind of societal
format, while the format in turn has something to do with how the
specimens’ awareness, consciousness and mind-configurations end up
being basically formulated.
How the mind thenceforth functions is probably quite consistent with
the basic formulation (often referred to as mental programming.)
THE NATURE OF SMALLER PICTURE
By far and large, from within itself any societal format seems a
But it can also be shown that societal formats are mostly centered
in local realities rather than in universals. And thus the formats
usually have more to do with local social set-ups and local
environmental factors rather than with species-wide or other generic
kinds of universals.
And indeed, not a few social structures are somewhat notorious for
expunging generic universals if they don’t fit into their particular
If one takes time to reflect on the above commentary, it would thus
seem that our species possesses the ironic universal capability of
formulating different local societal formats—but that the formats
are selective reductions emanating from the universal capability.
This is to say, then, that the reductions are smaller local pictures
formulated because of and within the universal capability of
formulating them. Grok THAT!
Indeed, anthropological and archaeological studies clearly establish
that our species has, during its known Earthside history, formulated
hundreds of thousands of smaller picture societal formats.
Most of these have come and gone, as is the on-going case today. The
only really permanent aspect of this is our species, and which has
the capability of formulating, and eventually disposing of, smaller
Put another way, it might be said that everyone has the capability
to manufacture, craft, or construct SMALLER pictures. The reasons
for the smaller pictures be might numerous, and indeed sometimes
necessary. None the less, smaller IS smaller.
Individual specimens of our species are then formatted (or brought
up, as it were) to fit into the smaller local societal formats, not
into the larger universals that are generic within our species
RELATIONSHIPS OF SMALLER AND BIGGER
If the above can tolerably be considered, at least for theoretical
discussion, it would then follow that ALL societal formats, no
matter how bigger picture they seem, are actually smaller
pictures—including the state, extent and content of their knowledge
systems, whatever those might consist of.
Indeed, it is easy enough to demonstrate that knowledge systems can
be characterized equally by what they DO NOT CONTAIN as by what they
Having said thus far, it would then be obvious that smaller pictures
might be fitted into a larger picture. Many people are prepared to
accept this, especially if they are humanitarian types.
In this context, it’s worth pointing up that some of the historical
tutorial modalities referred to in Part 1 have consisted of
transcultural and metaphysical efforts to mentally or intellectually
orient students within bigger pictures that refer to universals.
And it is from within those "enlargement efforts" (so to speak) that
increases in the frequency of at least spontaneous superpower
phenomena are often reported.
The reasons for this might not be quite clear. But in some sense, it
is possible to speculate that bigger picture does have something to
do with bigger mind, and bigger mind in turn seems to have something
to do with increases in superpower functioning.
In any event, bigger and smaller pictures exist. While we can think
that smaller pictures might (somehow) be somewhat fitted into bigger
ones, the reverse seems unlikely. It is true that big feet won’t fit
into small shoes without wrecking the feet and/or the shoes.
To over-emphasize a little, it does seem a universal that small
might fit into big with space to spare, but not the reverse. Thus,
it could become obvious that bigger pictures won’t fit very well
into smaller pictures.
There are, of course, many simple and complicated reasons for
this—one being that smaller pictures are in the first place usually
set up to exclude bigger picture elements. And indeed, the
boundaries of many smaller pictures might vaporize if they would be
required to integrate universal elements.
Beyond the implications of the above, it is easy enough to
comprehend that at various social levels many have interests
seriously vested in maintaining the contours of their local smaller
pictures—if only to remain, as it were, big frogs in the ponds the
smaller pictures represent.
If and where this might be the case, it is understandable that the
introduction of universals into smaller picture situations could be
seen as troublesome and undesirable.
For reasons that might be obvious, one certainly does not want to
antagonize whatever are the pictures set up by any segmented portion
of our species—and which anyway is a stressful waste of energy.
But the notion might be entertained, hypothetically, that our human
history is the history of its societal and social SMALLER pictures
within which all specimens of our species are some kind of
disposable and replaceable players.
It is true, of course, that the players are usually arranged along
lines ranging downward from the powerful to the powerless. But the
"identities" of the powerful and powerless tend to change if the
picture configurations that contain them starts shifting about.
This may be one reason why the powerful of course don’t like the
picture configurations to change—while the powerless sometimes tend
to view such shifts with interest and bemusement.
As an aside, this is an hypothetical situation that emerges in other
contexts at various points in this Website. But here it is worth
noting that power is usually considered bigger picture. However,
whatever is passing for the power is only relative to the size or
dimensions of the picture within which it is being "played."
ONE ASPECT OF THE SOCIOLOGY
The usual, even standard, way
of dealing with pictures is to attempt to concretize those wanted,
and to try to trash those not wanted—and usually by any means
The concretizing and trashing seem laudable within the mindsets
locked into the pictures involved. But by far and large, this
somewhat reeks of pismire proclivities randomly adrift in the
hostile mildew of useless lower order illusionisms. And indeed, as
many ultimately discover, any conviction that smaller pictures will
maintain for very long is clearly an illusion.
SUMMING UP SO FAR
In attempting to sum up so
far, it seems quite clear that big and small pictures do exist, and
that there are important distinctions to be made among them.
Roughly speaking, it can be considered that bigger pictures probably
refer and relate to universals.
In many a possible sense the smaller pictures refer only to local
factors that are not universal in nature, but with one exception. It
seems a rather vivid universal factor redolently incorporated into
our species to be able to erect smaller pictures—and this could
explain why there have been and are so many of them.
Indeed, it is possible to guesstimate that EACH specimen of our
species is actually some kind of an individual and individualizing
smaller picture, and this in a number of ways. And indeed, the
concept of THE individual has its exceedingly important connotations
in this regard.
As already mentioned, the usual way of managing WITHIN smaller
pictures is to concretize the one desired and to trash others—this
at the individual, group and cultural levels, and even at the
philosophic, sociological and scientific levels.
The assumption here seems to be that the concretizing will enlarge
the one desired and diminish the others. Thus, one can observe,
rather frequently, a lot of attempted concretizing and attempting
The whole of this might be referred to as the Wars of the Smaller
Pictures, this whole in turn being a rather stinky, lower-order
enterprise that can trickle down into pismire stink replete with scumocracy and
To now link back to the contexts of superpower tutorials, the
world-wide evidence is quite strong that the superpowers "belong" to
some kind of faculties universal to our species.
This seems to place the superpowers within some kind of bigger
universal picture. However, the contours and formulations of this
have NOT been adequately mapped.
Among the evidence along these lines that can be located and
analyzed, it would appear that those individuals who can access, so
to speak, universal bigger pictures tend to experience some kind of
automatic enhancement or elevation in superpower functioning.
One of the tentative observations regarding the whole of this is
that smaller pictures might at first seem far distant and not
relevant to the case for superpower activation. Yet, their mindset
effects or by-products might easily function as exclusion factors
and inhibitors, especially if they are active in some kind of mental
Whether this is the whole case or not, elements of it have obvious
relevance to the entire theoretical contexts of any possible
activation of the superpowers.
If this is understood for what it might represent, then the
spontaneous urge is to reject and escape from the smaller pictures
whose limitations might be thought of, and can actually constitute,
mental blockages to increases of superpower activation and
However, long experience has taught this writer that smaller
pictures are everywhere, and that it is virtually impossible to
ESCAPE from them. Indeed, as was earlier the case with little Moi,
one might merely make efforts to jump from one smaller picture to
another one, based on the illusion that the latter SEEMS bigger.
Well, who knows for sure. Any motion is better than none at all.
THE STRUCTURE OF SMALLER PICTURES
Some years of study and
reflection regarding this Situation suggest that escape from smaller
picture confines does not mean avoiding them. Rather, entrapment (so
to speak) in smaller pictures is possible largely because one
doesn’t understand what a small picture consists of in a structural
After all, if one wants to escape a "prison," one needs first to
know that it IS a prison, and then to know its layout, its
construction, and its ways and means—and possibly even to know HOW
and WHY it can and does exist in the first place.
In any event, there are NO studies regarding the topic that might be
entitled "Recognition of Smaller Picture Characteristics."
Some few of these structural characteristics (or anatomy) that can
easily be recognized without too much intellectual stress will begin
in the following essay.
But before jumping into the structural characteristics of smaller
pictures, a particular factor now really needs to be pointed up,
On average most people already have some kind of idea about the
superpowers—and those ideas are almost certainly derived from within
some kind of local, smaller picture concepts.
Back to Contents
STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SMALLER PICTURES
As alluded to in earlier essays, quite compelling evidence indicates
that the superpowers "belong" within a bigger picture that
incorporates the whole of our species. The evidence is historical,
anthropological and archaeological in nature, although the field of
archaeology tends to avoid and smooth over much in this regard.
Additionally, if the existence of genetic memory is entertained,
then certain kinds of evidence that otherwise cannot be explained
could possibly be acknowledged.
This bigger picture evidence somewhat flies in the face of modernist
conventional ideas that the superpowers are merely representative of
various social or mental artifacts, and as such have little
However, while it is true that different social formats assign
different nomenclature to the various types of superpower faculties,
the structural functioning of the superpowers is remarkably
consistent on the world-wide species basis.
As but two examples, what we call intuition and future-seeing are
found world-wide, even if they are dressed in different local social
metaphor, terminology and lore.
The unavoidable implication is thus quite clear: that the
superpowers belong not within finite, smaller-picture social
collectives which can be so different in many ways; rather, the
superpower faculties belong within the bigger-picture supersystems
that demonstrate FUNDAMENTAL or CORE samenesses throughout our
Here it is useful to reprise the most convenient definition of the
superpowers as those human faculties that transcend the known "laws"
of physicality including space and time, and matter and energy.
By far and large, the superpower faculties have to do with
information-transfer—and as such they are found well within the
bigger-picture aspects of our species intelligence, awareness, and
meaning-recognition supersystems, and which are shared world-wide
across time and the bio-physical generations.
As it is, though, the universal Human World (as its called) is a
very big world quite overloaded with all kinds of natural,
artificial and local social differences.
Because of this, the differences tend to assume often overwhelming
importance—with the outcome that the universal human world is
observed and studied within the confines of the differences that are
Anything that demonstrates the existence of confines can be assumed
to constitute some kind of smaller picture—and this even if the
picture looms large from within the confines.
As it is, the human world contains many confines (i.e., frames of
reference.) Thus, the human world has a rather vivid abundance of
smaller pictures. So, by the nature of all things, most specimens of
our species are more or less forced to accustomize and operate
within the local smaller pictures in which they dwell.
As mentioned earlier, many recognize this aspect of the human world.
If it thence seems important to do so, many try the tactic of
escaping the confines of the smaller pictures.
But this often results merely in taking on the trappings of other
smaller pictures that seem alluringly bigger, but in fact might not
be. This tactic can have something in common with escaping a local
set of ordinances and replacing it with another local set.
If one studies the nature of the superpower faculties, an important
clue to their activation and development can emerge.
By their TRANSCENDING nature, the superpowers faculties don’t care
very much for confines and sets of ordinances. And so, when they
spontaneously emerge, they stubbornly transcend those, too.
One of the important implications of this particular clue is that
escape from smaller picture confines can actually be quite
meaningless IF the transcending superpowers remain inactivated.
Thus, escape might be a perceived duty in some cases, but there are
important distinctions to be made between mere escape and the
processes of transcending.
As a general rule of thumb, however, one can neither escape nor
transcend unless one comprehends the nature of whatever is being
escaped or transcended.
In the case of smaller pictures, it is easy enough to escape their
cultural or social CONTENT. But smaller pictures also have a
STRUCTURAL aspect that almost always remains invisible.
One possible metaphor for this is that the CONTENT of a smaller
picture consists of the decor and furnishings of a room. The decor
and furnishings can be changed in fashionable or trendy ways.
However, the room is in its building, and the building can be
referred to as STRUCTURAL.
In any event, smaller pictures have to hang together upon and
because of something. Otherwise, their content would soon dissipate
into the non-structured ethers.
The question thus before us here has to do with how smaller pictures
are structured in a fundamental sense, and what are some of the
characteristics of the structuring.
As earlier mentioned, a smaller picture is most identifiable not by
what it contains, but by what it DOESN’T.
In this sense, then, the smaller picture is STRUCTURED so as NOT to
contain something or whatever.
This aspect of smaller pictures, however, is broadly understood—and
is one of the reasons many opt to escape from them. The picture
doesn’t contain whatever one wants or is searching for (bigger
knowledge, for example), and so one attempts to go elsewhere to try
to find the whatever.
There are a number of anatomical structural elements regarding HOW
and WHY smaller pictures become formulated.
Four of these particular structural elements (or dynamics) are
discussed below, with others discussed elsewhere.
The two most familiar structural elements regarding smaller pictures
have to do with various modalities of REDUCTIONISM and CONFORMISM.
Although these modalities, in different formats, are recognizable
from antiquity onward, they also became glowing hallmarks of the
twentieth century sciences, most of its major philosophies, and
overall sociological adventures and experiments.
A full part of the world drama of the twentieth century centers on
the arising of and escapes from modernist reductionism and
conformism, and a rich literature was produced in this regard.
Lurking just behind reductionism and conformism, however, are two
additional smaller-picture-making factors that are seldom identified
(1) UNIFORMISM (so unidentified, indeed, that the term
(2) DEPRIVATION OF KNOWLEDGE.
The term UNIFORMISM is not found in any dictionary, and is also not
considered as a thing-in-itself in any philosophical or sociological
However, the term UNIFORMIST does exist, albeit only in the OXFORD
ENGLISH DICTIONARY, wherein it is defined as "an advocate of or
believer in a uniform system, especially in respect of religious
doctrine or observance."
As an aside here, why the Oxford Dictionary singles out religious
factors in this regard is a complete mystery—in that one can
discover uniformists of all waters everywhere pounding away whether
subtly or stridently.
In any event, in that ISM is defined as "a distinctive doctrine,
cause or theory," then wherever ISTs are found their ISMs are not
far behind. Indeed, it is questionable that an IST could exist in
the absence of the ISM to advocate or believe in.
Since they have different contexts, it is worthwhile reprising the
definitions established for UNIFORM to help provide for increase of
Having always the same form,
manner, or degree; not varying or variable.
Of the same form with others; conforming to one rule or
Presenting an undiversified appearance of surface, color.
Consistent in conduct or opinion.
Two slight, but temporary, difficulties
surface in seeking to utilize the term UNIFORM.
First, the term is most popularly aligned with styles of dress,
costume, or body decor, and not only of the military or ceremonial
Second, the term UNIFORMITARIANISM has been claimed on behalf of
"the geological doctrine that existing processes acting
in the same manner as at present are sufficient to account for all
(In this sense, a UNIFORMITARIAN is "a believer
in uniformitarianism; an advocate in uniformity.")
To help sort through the latter definition, it should be noted that
uniformitarianism as a geological doctrine is more or less defunct
today. But the doctrine seems to have had its origins in a kind of
pre-modern period when, in defiance of evidence otherwise, it was
assumed that nothing fell from the sky to Earth’s surface. The
doctrine also held that all significant geological changes were SLOW
ones, and that the changes proceeded within this slowness within
The above slight discussion has relevance to the nature of
philosophical and scientific UNIFORMISM—which, of course, would have
to be somewhat intolerant of any change at all, whether slow or
fast. SLOW, however, is a major construct within UNIFORMISM, since
slowness is least likely to "threaten" any brand of the ism.
As it is, outside of the concept of "making the fast buck," it is
difficult in the human world to find any other context that has
vested interests in FAST change. Indeed, if things change quickly
all of the time, then the changes tend to become redundantly
If the foregoing comments are slowly considered, then it can become
apparent that, on average, there exists within the multifaceted
human world some kind of general predilection for slow uniformisms.
However, the desired uniformity (whatever it might consist of) can
be achieved only by lopping of whatever can’t be made uniform.
It thus would follow that if what is lopped off doesn’t exactly go
away, but persists in flopping about anyway, then active measures
need to be designed so as to discredit it and its meanings.
In the overall contexts of the on-going human world, this means that
the work of uniformists is never done—because it takes careful work
to keep things uniform.
Lopping of what doesn’t fit into this or that ostensible uniformity
is, of course, one of the all-time greatest and most popular ways to
commence small-picture construction.
For whatever the reasons, the energies of our species for such kinds
of projects are considerable, and so our history is appropriately
littered with monuments to this or that kind of uniformity.
In the hypothetical sense of the foregoing, then, reductionism,
conformity, and deprivation of knowledge are vehicles via which
uniformists seek to achieve their lopping off goals.
But here we reach something quite difficult to articulate and grok.
On the surface of the uniformism issues, one might at first think
that the goals of uniformists are to achieve the greater glories of
the particular uniformism in which they are indulging themselves.
If this would be the case, then there are often various kinds of
pride and ennobling purposes involved.
However, this is certainly only one side of the coin regarding all
kinds of uniformism. If any given uniformism is to succeed and
prevail, the obverse side of the coin has to be become vigilantly
aware of whatever might disrupt or threaten it.
It then follows that whatever any disruption might consist of (such
as facts and phenomena inconvenient, for example), it is fated to
undergo attempted extinguishment—even if knowledge is cast askew and
suffers as a result.
Now, as already pointed up, the concept of uniformism is
unfamiliar—and so its workings and mechanisms are left unidentified
and unexamined. In partial explanation of this, anyone can look
around and perceive much that is not uniform.
Another reason is that the concept of conformity gets so much
limelight attention that the conformity itself is taken to
constitute THE problem. However, conformity always exists in regard
TO something, and the TO something is almost always some kind of
In this sense, any given conformity consists of a smaller picture of
None the less, concepts that are unfamiliar always at first tend to
be imprecise and thus to become surrounded by fogs of ambiguity
until the functioning dynamics concealed in the ambiguities are more
clearly identified. The concept of UNIFORM itself is a good example
The first recorded usage of UNIFORM in English dates from 1623 when
it was utilized as IN UNIFORM—this defined as "in one body or
flock." IN UNIFORM seems to have been utilized in the context of
"Our sheepe shall fear no Wolfe, or suddaine storme; But goe and
come all safe in uniform."
The above is indicated as obsolete in the Oxford Dictionary—which is
astonishing, largely because the activities of going and coming in
one flock are redundantly present everywhere.
In any event, the above usage was obviously intended to refer to a
major sociological premise-cum-model, in that the sheep members of
the flock were to be herded in inform ways—while at the same time
those ways included the protection of the sheep from Wolfes and
suddaine stormes, presumably by eradicating the former and guarding
against the latter.
This sociological model has indeed produced a large number of very
impressive social structures and institutions (some not all that
beneficent on behalf of the sheep). Thus, the concept-premise of IN
UNIFORM really should be dredged up and considered in some depth and
seriousness. Here, however, it’s possible only to reconstruct a
nut-shell examination, expanding piecemeal in other essays.
For starters, the metaphor of sheep always directly implies the
existence of herders. So at first take, the nature and character of
the herders assumes limelight importance, and a good deal of fuss
and bother of various kinds has always gone on in this regard.
However, at the bottom line of this sociological model, the herders
haven’t much to herd if, in the first instance, there are not sheep
to go and come in uniform.
Thus, if this sociological model is to be workable, the sheep FIRST
have somehow to be provided or acquired so that not only will the
herders have something to do, but also live up to their job of
eradicating Wolves and guarding against suddaine stormes that might
cast the sheep-flock asunder.
If the internal dynamics of this model are groked, it can easily be
diagrammed envisioned as a self-contained social system with the
sheep and herders inside the perimeters and all else outside of
Even so, inside the perimeters the sheep remain of central
importance. Attendant upon, and intimately integrated into, this
importance is the matter of how and wherefrom the sheep are not only
to be provided or acquired, but how their on-going population is to
be maintained AND guaranteed.
At first sight, THIS factor seems very complex, indeed. But it can
speedily be illuminated by the sheep metaphor itself.
Sheep are universally considered as dumb animals, and hence the
sheep metaphor serves not only as the universal symbol of dumbness,
but its archetype, too.
In this regard, it is not too much to say that the sheep metaphor
cuts like a meat clever through ALL of the implications of the
second essay in this little series—in which it is posited that the
chief characteristic of our species has to do with the fact that it
is, by any measure, a superlative intelligence-system.
In any event, where sheep are required, ways and means have to be
undertaken to guarantee their existence and on-going presence.
At first glance, how their existence and on-going presence is to be
achieved might seem as if it needs some kind of monumental and
However, IF this intricacy was the case, then many of the ostensible
herders might find themselves inadequate to the purpose and quickly
beached on its complexities.
The major solution is far more simple and easy to effect, and is
neatly enunciated in the concept having to do with the deprivation
of knowledge already mentioned.
In this sense (and as almost anyone can self-discover), it is far
more easy to effect various kinds of deprivation of knowledge than
it is to erect any kind of it. Thus, the task of the herders is not
all that taxing and arduous.
It now would follow that sheep, in order to be and remain as sheep,
need only to be deprived of the specific kinds of knowledge that
would shift their sheep status to something else—specifically with
regard to the overall IN UNIFORM context upon which this kind of
social edifice is mounted.
Indeed, it’s not too much to say that sheep can be identified not by
what knowledge they have, but by the knowledge they are deprived of.
If this would be the case, then it would follow that there can be
various echelons of sheepness through and through this kind of
social structure, including up and through the top of it. Even the
topmost herders can stand more completely revealed by virtue of the
knowledge they are deprived of.
The foregoing attempted nutshelling of course leaves much
unaccounted for. But one of the more astonishing (if revolting)
factors of this has to do with the apparent fact that deprivation of
knowledge can be managed IN UNIFORM kinds of ways, and that the
entire social structure can conform to the deprivation.
At this point, it is worth mentioning the nuance distinctions
(1) the absence of knowledge, and
(2) the deprivation of knowledge
On average, and in some aspects, these two contexts might amount to
the same thing.
Thus, deprivation of knowledge has to do with something that is
knowledgeable, but which is none the less taken away or withheld
Obviously, a deprivation of knowledge cannot be effected unless
there is already a good idea of what the knowledge consists of.
Equally obviously, then, deprivation of knowledge is effected and
engineered mostly because it is UNDERSTOOD to have direct negative
implications regarding the supposed integrity of this or that
The broader social contexts of all of the foregoing are, of course,
entirely complex and complicated—so much so that at best one can
only attempt to wobble one’s way through them.
But with regard to all of the foregoing, it can at least be
hypothetically established that the largely unexamined dynamics of
uniformism, reductionism, conformity and deprivation of knowledge
can be engineered so as to work in tandem with each other.
Of these four societal workhorses, the dynamics of conformity are
best understood broadly, with reductionism as close runner-up in
But, as already established, the concept of IN UNIFORM (and hence,
its UNIFORMISM fallouts) fell into obsolescence and has thus
remained largely unidentified since, and certainly not examined.
It is easy enough to see why—in that the CONCEPT of uniformism is a
keystone with regard to great parts of the so-called human
condition. Such keystones usually have something to do with power,
how it is to be maintained, and how it is managed and partitioned in
sheep-cum-herder social structures.
In the line-up of these four great societal workhorses
inter-functioning in tandem, REDUCTIONISM usually plays a role
somewhat akin to greasing the machine or system in fail-safe kinds
However, before briefly going into this, it seems necessary to point
up that reductionism has achieved a rather bad reputation with
regard to the sciences, in that the sciences have been accused of
being "too reductionistic."
This may or may not be the case within the vast panorama of the
sciences. But it is far more likely that the sciences internally
suffer, when they do, more directly from unscientific deprivations
of knowledge than from their reductionistic research
methodologies—even though the latter can result in the former.
In the broader perspectives of the human condition, the formal
definition of REDUCTIONISM is given as "a procedure or theory that
reduces complex data or phenomena to simple terms."
At first sight, this definition seems sensible enough. But the
definition is somewhat astonishing with regard to whether complex
data or phenomena can or should be so simply reduced.
Indeed, much naturally existing data or phenomena ARE and REMAIN
complex by their very nature. And so in this regard this particular
ISM and its formal definition clearly trend toward the oxymoronic—an
OXYMORON consisting of "a combination of contradictory or
incongruous words (in this case REDUCTION + ISM).
However, the history of our species clearly demonstrates that the
concept of reductionism has had enormous appeal, and this even long
before the term was coined.
One possible reason that might account for this appeal is that the
erecting of "simple terms" need not necessarily be preceded by any
given complexities of data or phenomena. Indeed, such terms can
easily be "arrived at" without anything of the kind.
REDUCTIONISM is one of those terms that definitely need to be
examined within the contexts it is being employed.
The appeal of this term is more pronounced within societal contexts
than any other ones.
Since most societal contexts contain an over-abundance of
sheep-cum-herder social systems—and since these are largely
dependent upon ubiquitous presence of sheep deprived of knowledge—it
is somewhat logical to assume that the sheep at best can only deal
with "simple terms."
Another way at stating this is that ANYTHING other than simple terms
might react among the sheep as the Wolfe and suddaine stormes
might—thus upsetting the desirable balance of deprivation of
knowledge shared by the sheep.
After all, it is easy to grok that no proper herder wants a nervous
flock (even a science-oriented one), and which nervousness anyway
would make the herders’ jobs more complicated and stressful.
The contexts of this essay stand in direct conflict with the
contexts of the preceding essay having to do with our amazing
species as a bigger picture.
The central premise of that essay is that our species, in a bigger
picture way, consists of a superlative intelligence-system, and
which downloads into each specimen of it.
In this sense, then, the central bigger-picture confusion more or
less involves a stressful dichotomy that can be described as
(1) a species-wide, superlative intelligence system—which is
distorted and diminished by
(2) such superficialities as socially engineered deprivation of
knowledge and various uniformisms (no matter how elegant THEIR macro
and micro managed surfaces might appear).
The struggle of (1) above to exist and flourish in the face of (2)
above is awesome indeed.
To move rapidly on into next part of this small series of
hypothetical considerations, the inherent mandate of our species as
superlative intelligence system now needs some elaboration with
regard to the individual level—for believe it or not the contexts
highlighted in this essay can be reflected down into the individual
All things do trickle down, you know.
Back to Contents
GROUPINGS vs. THE INDIVIDUAL vs. MARGINS OF AWARENESS vs. DEPRIVATIONS
The action of considering anything at length can become tedious and
boring unless provision is made for two important factors that
assist cognitive processes.
The first has to do with establishing why the consideration should
be undertaken in the first place. The second has to do with
establishing some kind of graphic format that encapsulates the whole
of what is being considered.
As will become apparent to different readers, a consideration of
smaller pictures vs. bigger ones has to do not with the pictures
themselves per se, but with expanding margins of awareness about
Although awareness is not usually considered a superpower function,
it is easy enough to grok that it serves as the basis for all other
superpower faculties. If taken this way, then awareness could
actually be thought of as a meta-superpower something or other.
As to a graphic format that encapsulates the whole of the central
topic of this set of essays, it is easy enough to DO the following:
Draw a large circle on a piece of paper, and give it the label of
OUR WONDERFUL SPECIES with all its amazing powers and attributes.
Inside the large circle, sketch a number of smaller circles numerous
enough to fill up the larger one. Label these as social groupings.
Outside of the larger circle, note that each of the social groupings
can be characterized by elements of uniformism, reductionism,
conformism, and deprivations of knowledge.
Now fill up each of the smaller circles with dots, and call these
the individuals within the social groupings.
If one is inspired enough to do so, one can now make a list of
social groupings world-wide, and make an effort to identify the
elemental characteristics regarding their formats of uniformism,
reductionism, conformism, and deprivations of knowledge.
However, while constructing this graphic representation, be pleased
and contented to bear in mind that the point of doing so is not to
wax critical of any of the social groupings. Waxing critical usually
one results in becoming emotionally embroiled within the
smaller-picture confines of the social groupings. If this embroiling
happens to any great degree, one usually ends up participating in
some kind of pismire activity.
The point is only to establish the graphic representation in order
to provide one’s cognitive powers with a short-form concept format
regarding smaller pictures vs bigger ones.
THE INDIVIDUAL vs AWARENESS MARGINS
Here we now encounter a topic
having considerable dimensions, but whose dimensions are seldom
considered within most social contexts.
Indeed, most social contexts establish uniformistic configurations
that specify what kinds of awarenesses are to be tolerated and not
In fact, it can easily be shown that most social frameworks permit
only those kinds of awareness that (1) cohere the framework
parameters of the group, and then (2) fit the individual into the
framework, and THEN only in keeping with the individual’s place
within the social whole.
In this sense, it would be clear that the awareness margins of the
socially powerless (the sheep) needs to be cut back and limited in
order to keep the powerless in, as it were, the condition of being
powerless. Only by managing the social group this way can the
powerful (the herders) identify and define themselves.
Something regarding the on-going reality of this can be uncovered by
taking note of the absence of schools and special training
activities the specific purpose of which would be to enhance and
enlarge awareness margins in wholesale kinds of ways.
Everyone knows that awareness exists, of course, that it can become
empowered and thus powerful, and that it is a hallmark trait of our
species to the degree that it is one of its most fundamental
Since this IS the case, it then goes almost without saying that
control of margins of awareness is one of the major fulcrums of
almost all social groupings.
One of the most direct implications in this regard is that
inhabitants of any social grouping must be deprived of knowledge
about AWARENESS itself, and especially with regard to THEIR
individual awareness systems.
If this would be the case, then one could expect to find very little
information about the nature of awareness, and this especially with
regard to training and mechanisms that might enhance and expand it.
And indeed, if any care to make the effort, readers of this essay
might themselves now undertake to discover what is known about
awareness, whether it has been studied and researched, and if the
results of such are available for downloading into individual
cognizance. Well, good luck at this.
Awareness is most clearly and without any question one of the chief
survival functions of our species, and thus of each of its
It can also be established that awareness is so much and so close an
intimate adjunct of our species as an intelligence-system that it is
almost impossible to separate the two factors.
But it is possible to hypothesize that awareness faculties innately
exist in our species hard drive mechanisms - after which, like
languages, it undergoes specific modulating and formatting according
to what different socio-cultural sub-units establish for its
After undergoing this kind of degrading and downsizing, the general
topic of awareness becomes a very sensitive issue - to the degree
that anyone hoping to become acceptable within the confines of their
local social grouping explores the topic at their peril.
It is thus, regardless of their other stunning achievements, that
the modern twentieth-century sciences, philosophies, and sociologies
have managed to arrive at a lesser understanding of awareness than
was the case in most pre-modern societies. It is not improbable that
this was by socio-cultural design, rather than because of modernist
Indeed, it is in this sense that the double dominant uniformisms of
the modern age, scientific and philosophic materialism, were broadly
seen as highly desirable.
After all, it is difficult to see how MATTER can have awareness. And
if matter was considered as the basic be-all-end-all aspect of
everything, then there was no need to enter into discussions and
research regarding the nature of awareness.
Thus, even if awareness is a fulcrum regarding human survival and
the struggles of existing, it could be removed or at least
marginalized as anything of substantial concern - with scientific
dignity left neatly intact.
Likewise, there is no general entry for AWARENESS in the
all-inclusive Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967), while that
Encyclopedia’s index lists only five brief references to it. The
Encyclopedia is well over 4,000 pages in length. So only five brief
references to awareness is exceedingly brief, indeed.
This situation is a rather amusing one - in that it can be presumed
that philosophers of all waters have awarenesses at least sufficient
enough upon which to found their particular philosophical versions.
DEFINITIONS OF AWARENESS
The concept of HAVING AWARENESS is clearly a very old one - and as
such has been represented by an enormous terminological assortment
through the ages.
The English term AWARE is derived from A + WAER, and is found in Old
English at about the year 1000 as AWAER, and which apparently meant
"watchful." Earlier derivations of the term into Old English are
apparently not known, and there does not appear to have been much
interest in tracking them down.
There are only two principal definitions of AWARE:
The first definition is: "Watchful,
vigilant, cautious, alert, on one’s guard." This definition is
given as OBSOLETE - although WHY it should be considered
obsolete is at first sight a complete mystery.
The second, non-obsolete, definition
is: "Informed, cognizant, conscious, sensible; to have
experience; to know; to be aware of (that)."
The above two definitions, as given, are
the beginning and end of the definitions and meanings of AWARE. If
the ultra-importance of awareness is considered, this is
ridiculously short treatment.
But even so, there are strategic nuances between the first and
second definitions. These differences might escape notice if they
are not pointed up.
In the first place, the first definition is ACTIVE, while the second
one tends toward the PASSIVE, the receptive. Specifically put,
"informed, cognizant, conscious" require an "of something" because
there is no condition of "informed" unless it is of or about
In terms of the dynamics involved, the second definition portrays
nothing like the first, which specifies being watchful and on guard.
The distinctions here become somewhat more clear in that, for
example, social programmers of all waters would tend to view the
first definition with some alarm - because if the social-sheep were
to be watchful, alert, on guard, then it would be more difficult to
inform them about what they should and should not be cognizant of.
In any event, the two definitions as given above represent the
beginning and end of information about AWARENESS within our mighty
So, the term is seldom really utilized with any seriousness, and in
recent times had tended to be subsumed into the concept of
CONSCIOUSNESS - and which is taken to represent a larger category
and more general principle.
And here it is possible to uncover a peculiar factoid. It is
possible to become conscious OF, for example, uniformism,
reductionism, conformism, and deprivation of knowledge, and of
smaller-picture social constructs as well.
But per se consciousness OF something and being watchful, alert and
guarding against something consist of two dynamically different sets
In any event, it is well understood in the greater sociological
sense that consciousness can better be manipulated and managed than
can awareness - IF the obsolete definition of awareness is recovered
as alert, watchful, vigilance, and being on one’s guard.
Now arises the wonderment as to whether AWARENESS MARGINS refer to
the first, obsolete definition of awareness, or to the second
definition in which the concept of awareness is subsumed into that
Discussion along these lines must be undertaken in tandem with the
concept that our species, and all of its downloading specimens, are
intelligence-systems. One can then wonder what the
intelligence-system would be like without the active definition of
Beyond the brief foregoing considerations, there is clearly much to
be considered regarding awareness and awareness margins. But these
discussions will benefit more if they incorporate additional bigger-
picture phenomena of our species.
And so the theme of awareness margins will be unfolded more with
regard to, for example, essays having to do with biomind SYSTEMS.
Meanwhile, it is now perhaps possible to grok something of the
essence regarding the following: When grouped together, social
groupings, the individual, awareness margins, and deprivations of
knowledge do comprise something of a Mess of smaller-picture
On average, though, many are not all that much aware of the
existence of the mess, what it consists of, or its various impacts
at the individual level.
One reason for this unawareness is that individuals are often locked
into the frameworks of their local smaller pictures.
If the locking is strong enough (i.e., concretized solidly enough),
individuals tend to project their local smaller pictures onto the
world at large - and then to assume, often in an unexpressed sense,
that the whole world can be explained and understood in the terms of
their local smaller-picture frameworks.
The inverse of this is often the case. For example, individuals can
encounter other kinds of smaller pictures, or at least some elements
The tendency then is to interpret the other smaller-picture
frameworks in ways that make them consistent with the ones the
individual already has.
Another way of putting this is that individuals can modulate other
realities to make them consistent with their own.
If certain factors at home in the other realities cannot be made to
fit, then those factors are reinterpreted (altered) so that they can
fit. If the fitting is not really possible, then the other factors
are usually discredited or in some form done away with.
As will be discussed in the following essay, this kind of situation
is of extraordinary importance in the case of any kind of tutorials
or training regarding activation of the superpower faculties.
Back to Contents
INDIVIDUAL vs. SMALLER AND BIGGER PICTURES
What is simply referred to as THE INDIVIDUAL is, in actuality, a
very complex affair—so complex indeed that efforts to generalize too
much are doomed to becoming bogged down with regard to whatever
might be their purpose.
The above having been stated, it is incumbent on this writer to
identify some kind of a basic starting point for the elaborations to
On average, discussions about The Individual usually focus on
differences—perhaps because the differences are most visible on the
surface of the topic as it is usually first conceptualized.
The assumption that goes along with this is that the individual is
an individual because of differences with regard to other
individuals, and whom, of course, are different, too.
This has led many to assume that the differences among individuals
appropriately DO constitute the central and most logical approach
regarding whatever else might be involved.
Thus, the central concepts of The Individual and Individuality are
closely related to the concept of Differences.
However, if one consults the established definitions of the term
INDIVIDUAL, one will find no mention of differences among them.
Rather, the central concept has to do with SEPARATE and the quality
of being separate.
And indeed, the individual needs to be separate in the first
instance of existing as an individual. And so it would transpire
that only AFTER being separate would differences have much bearing
If this is reflected upon, we can illuminate a strange and
contradictory factor that lurks somewhat invisibly just behind the
common concepts of The Individual.
The factor is this: if individuals are majorly judged and demarcated
by their differences, then they are all too often conceptualized as
belonging within sets of differences that can indiscriminately and
ambiguously comprise a great number of individuals.
When such is the case, the individual then loses the identity as a
discrete individual or a separate entity.
One can think of many examples in which people are NOT
conceptualized as separate, but are identified by the sets of
differences into which they can be fitted—and this as other people
see them or are taught to see them.
This leads into those situations where the individual is supported
or condemned in much the same fashion as the sets of differences
themselves are supported or condemned, or are tolerated or not
Thus, depending on the circumstances involved, the individual can
quite quickly suffer a loss of individuality by being ignominiously
subsumed into a set of differences—within which the idea of The
Individual becomes ambiguous, even unimportant and meaningless, and
in which the idea of The Individual is NOT supported.
There are two important implications that descend out of this kind
The first is that the concept of The Individual might be
representative of some kind of idealism. But as regards practical
life and matters, the idealism can quickly fall by the wayside in a
rather tattered condition.
The second implication revolves around the concept that
individual-as-separate constitutes the bigger picture of the
individual, while any differences constitute smaller, or at least,
This latter concept might seem rather murky at first. But it become
more clear if one considers that:
Differences are ALWAYS perceived and
mediated via some kind of local societal framework.
All societal frameworks are set up and managed via various types
of uniformism, reductionism, conformism, and deprivations of
this or that kind of knowledge.
In this sense, then, although
individuals may live among the social frameworks and adapt to their
uniformisms, etc., the differences belong to the frameworks, not to
the individual per se.
In this sense, if The Individual is to be fitted into any kind of
uniformism, etc., then the fact that The Individual is a separate
life-force-carrying entity must become downgraded and of hardly any
interest except in some vaporous philosophical idealizing, if even
But the worst here also needs to be pointed up. If The Individual is
to be fitted into any given, smaller-picture social framework, then
The Individual is susceptible to the viruses of the mind that
uniformism, reductionism, conformism, and deprivations of knowledge
can possibly bring into existence.
(NOTE: A larger background for this possibility can be found in the
book daringly entitled
VIRUS OF THE MIND (1996) by Richard Brodie,
who was the original author of Microsoft Word and personal technical
assistant to Bill Gates.)
In any event, and because of the foregoing considerations, it is
worthwhile digging deeper into the contexts of The Individual.
SAMENESS FACTORS OF INDIVIDUALS
While differences among individuals obviously have some kind of
meaning to the concept of The Individual, each individual possesses
certain sameness factors, and some of these are of extraordinary
Over-emphasis on individual differences, and differences individuals
have in common, has apparently served to almost completely occlude
the fact that individuals also possess sameness factors.
First of all (and it IS a first of all) each embodied individual
downloads from the generic intelligence-system attributes of our
species. As such, no matter how different each individual ultimately
is, each is first and foremost a replicated, downloaded
intelligence-system incorporated as a separate and independent
specimen of the species.
Incorporated into each independent intelligence-system are arrays of
biomind sensors and awarenesses equipment, and a number of
pre-installed hard-drive attributes—some of which were partially
described in part 2 of this series of essays.
One of more obvious mainframe functions of the sensors, awarenesses,
and hard-drive attributes is to permit the intelligence-system to
experience phenomena and to grok meaning regarding them.
In this sense, by essential nature the individual is FIRST an
experiencer of phenomena—AFTER WHICH, and to be sure, both positive
and negative nurture can play significant roles with regard to
It is important to point up here that the context elucidated in the
above paragraph can become more easily visible if one considers the
individual as a downloaded specimen of our species.
Achieving this visibility is made much more mushy and swampy if the
individual is considered merely as a dweller within the labyrinthine
complexities that clog the veins and arteries of local social
It is also worth pointing up at this juncture that if an individual
is basically an intelligence-system completely equipped to
experience phenomena, then The Individual, in this sense, would
frequently be viewed with abject alarm within sheep-cum-herder
The reason is easy enough to deduce. Such societal frameworks much
depend on this or that kind of uniformism, etc.
But in the case of all types of uniformisms, their parameters are to
be maintained and safeguarded.
In this sense, individuals incorporated into the parameters can
hardly be permitted to run around and willy-nilly experience
phenomena that might put cracks into the uniformism—or, as well,
disturb the desired balances of deprivations of knowledge.
Thus, arises the great specter regarding tolerance and intolerance
of human experiencing, the specter having special importance
regarding THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL.
Having to deal with this specter, however, is usually circumvented
by establishing stringently enforced uniformity with respect to
certain levels of deprivation of knowledge—especially with regard to
what The Human Individual actually consists of.
THEN, if individuals experience stuff outside the boundaries of the
uniformism, it is likely they won’t really want to tangle with the
greater prevailing-wisdom (so-called) forces always stringently on
guard within the uniformistic parameters.
As discussed elsewhere in this Website, this particular aspect is
entirely relevant to any consideration of the superpowers of the
human biomind, and pointedly so with respect regards any significant
activation of them.
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEA OF INDIVIDUALISM
Moving onward now, it needs
to be pointed up that most concepts regarding The Individual
download from the centralizing philosophical concept of
This is essentially a modernist concept, in that most pre-modern
societies didn’t incorporate it—and certainly not in the ways it has
flourished in modernist times.
In tracking down the origins of the philosophic idea, it is
surprising and interesting to learn that it somehow arose in the
United States where it was early encountered by Alexis de
Tocqueville, the French traveler, observer and writer.
In his 1835 book, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, de Tocqueville noted that
"Individualism is a novel [American] expression, to which a novel
idea has given birth."
De Tocqueville gives the working definitions as of 1835:
"Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which causes each
member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellow
creatures, and to draw apart with his family and friends."
From this was drawn the first formal definitions of
"Self-centered feeling or conduct as a principle; a mode of life in
which the individual pursues his own life and ends or follows out
his own ideas; egoism."
However, the concept of INDIVIDUALISM made very rapid progress,
philosophically speaking. For about five years later (at about 1840)
it was being defined in England as no less than a,
which advocates the free and independent action of the individual,
as opposed to communistic methods of organization and state
By about 1877, the theory of INDIVIDUALISM had been embellished
with, of all things, metaphysical contexts and had made a
metamorphosis from theory into a doctrine:
"The doctrine that the
individual is a self-determined whole, and that any larger whole is
merely an aggregate of individuals which, if they act on each other
at all do so only externally."
The "metaphysical" context of the above doctrine might not at first
be visible today. As of 1877, the "whole individual" was still being
thought of as some kind of life force "principle" that animates the
material physical aspects of what we today would think of as the
physical genetic body.
This life-force was considered the central principle of VITALISM,
while the life-force principle itself was considered as
meta-physical in source and origin.
As it transpired, this metaphysical doctrine quickly ran afoul with
those particular Western societal trends intent on doing away with
any kind of METAphysical stuff so as to cause the uniformism of
materialism to emerge supreme and universal.
The foregoing definitions were about the only somewhat clear-cut
description of what individualism was thought to have referred to.
Thereafter, with its possible meanings, implications, inferences,
and interpretations, the term was dragged into one of those hyper-dichotemizing
swamps that clutter various intellectualizing aspects of The Human
Another enhancement to the swamp occurred as the twentieth century
geared up—in that the proponents of HOLISM felt obliged to criticize
and attack the proponents of INDIVIDUALISM, and vice versa.
Thus, because of the democratic processes of equal time, equal
consideration, neither of the two isms could be discussed without
the other, at least at academic levels.
Shortly, the individualism-versus-holism conflict took shape as a
major philosophical conundrum, the nature of which can be found
described in THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY (1967) under the entry
for "Holism and Individualism in History and Social Science."
With apologies, part of the introductory paragraphs are quoted
"In most recent philosophical
discussion, the contrast between holism and individualism in
history and the social sciences has been presented as a
"Stated generally, the question is whether we should treat
large-scale social events and conditions as mere aggregates or
configurations of the actions, attitudes, relations, and
circumstances of the individual men and women who participated
in, enjoyed, or suffered from them.
"Methodological individualists say we should. Methodological
holists (or collectivists, as some prefer to be called) claim,
rather, that social phenomena may be studied as their own
autonomous, macroscopic level of analysis. Social ‘wholes,’ they
say, not their human elements, are the true historical
"This issue obviously bears directly upon the way we are to
conceive the relations between such social sciences as
psychology and sociology, and between these and historical
The entry for this dual topic now
continues for several double-columnar pages. The interested reader
is now referred to those pages—albeit with the warning that ANYTHING
to do with The Individual per se has disappeared from considerations
so momentous they don’t really need to acknowledge the existence of
individual specimens of our species.
We are thus left in a condition of wonderment about What The
Hot on the track of ANY answers here, most dictionaries define
INDIVIDUAL in of the following ways:
A particular being or thing as
distinguished from a class, species, or collection
A single human being as
contrasted with a social group or institution
A single organism as
distinguished from a group
Being an individual or existing
as an indivisible whole
Existing as a distinct entity
If one wants to grasp what the
individual IS, the above definitions are only of minimal
help—because they establish hardly anything about what the
individual IS, but only focus on the PLACE of individuals among
other factors around.
However, it’s worth noting that definition 3 above is particularly
odious, if contrasted to the established definition of an ORGANISM:
"A complex structure of
interdependent and subordinated elements whose relations and
properties are largely determined by their function in the
In this sense, the term "single" in the
definition should be amended to read "separate."
Furthermore, in this particular context, it’s worth entering here
the definition for yet another ism, in this case ORGANICISM:
"A theory that life and living
processes are the manifestation of an activity possible only
because of the autonomous organization of the SYSTEM rather than
because of its individual components [emphasis on SYSTEM added].
WHY the above should be considered a
theory is somewhat mysterious—since the definition seems more or
less to describe self-evident facts.
In any event, by tracking our way through the above definitions, we
at least get into the proximity of the concept that whatever else
the individual might consist of, it is in the first place some kind
of indivisible SYSTEM.
THE INDIVIDUAL AS AN INDIVISIBLE
At this point, it is well worth while wondering WHY in the first
place the term INDIVIDUAL took on common understanding as referring
to ONE or to SINGLE, or even to SEPARATE or to
The term INDIVIDUAL is taken from the Latin INDIVIDUUS—and which
meant: "One in substance and essence; not separable; that cannot be
One of the problems here is that while the definitions just above
MAKE SENSE, all of them have been declared OBSOLETE in most modern
dictionaries. Even so, the obsolete definitions remain perfectly
good and useful ones.
Indeed, those definitions were being carried into English as late as
about 1650 at which time INDIVIDUAL was still being taken to mean
"existing as a separate indivisible entity."
At about the same time, however, the term was also began to be
utilized in the context of "distinguished by attributes of his own,"
and eventually this concept trended toward wider usage over the
And thus The Individual became thought of as individual because of
having particular different attributes—not because of being of one
in substance and essence.
One of the on-going fallouts of this is that people sometimes think
of themselves as an individual because of their attributes different
from those of others.
In this way, the very important idea of "an indivisible one in
substance and essence" tends to get lost in the miasma of everyone’s
The small nomenclature discussion above is extremely important to
how the superpower faculties have been perceived in modern contexts.
Those contexts generally held that the superpowers emanated from a
particular and uniquely special form of "giftedness" and/or set of
attributes not shared by all individuals.
This meant that expressed forms of Psi, if they existed at all,
would involve only a very small "gifted" percentage of the
populations. And if this could be established as the case, then the
small percentage was not a troublesome threat to any number of
established societal uniformisms.
Any other troublesome threat would be further minimized almost to
extinction if the "gifted" percentage could also be identified
within the contexts of hallucination.
Thus, both the gifted small percentage and evidence for Psi could be
reduced to a quite smaller picture—while attaching the label of
"hallucination" would cause that smaller picture to be viewed with
social disgust and horror.
Today, one might think that there were never any organized social
measures undertaken that would result in the above scenario.
However, in 1889 the then quite socially powerful International
Congress of Psychology meeting in Paris urged that a Census be
established and conducted. This activity was ultimately titled the
"International Census of Waking Hallucinations in the Sane."
In the mainstream societal sense, the Census was thereafter thought
to have "furnished ample and trustworthy data" with regard to the
fact that less than 7 per cent of the "sane" experienced
By lumping psychic phenomena into hallucinations, this was taken to
mean that less than 7 per cent of the population would experience
Psi perceptions, but which anyway were to be interpreted as
hallucinations. Hence, nothing to worry about, percentage-wise.
(The interested reader is referred to
HALLUCINATIONS AND ILLUSIONS:
A STUDY OF THE FALLACIES OF PERCEPTION by Edmund Parish, published
by Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1897, and in which the Census and its
findings are reviewed.)
In any event, some did not "buy" the anti-psychic hallucination
concepts, and these opted to speculate that the psychic individual
was psychic BECAUSE of special giftedness.
This pro-psychic "explanation" then became a dominant idea that
floated within early psychical research and later parapsychological
overviews. One of the results was that the modernist Western social
systems have not fully recovered from its negative knowledge
Through the intervening decades until now, many ostensible psychics
were also quite partial to this "explanation."
Of course, the "explanation" didn’t actually explain very much. But
it did tend to bestow on psychics a status of "specialness" among
all other presumably non-special people, and which special status
tended to puff up not a few "psychic" egos.
From the whole of this, there occasionally descends here and there
the idea that the superpowers cannot be tutored or trained because
they are naturally special only to the few who "naturally" posses
the (unspecified) endowments—and as such the special but unspecified
endowments cannot be artificially installed in others.
Alas, whether this is the case or not depends on what one possesses
as basic concept configurations regarding what the superpowers
ESSENTIALLY consist of—especially if such configurations are based
on traditional smaller-picture misinformation.
Such concept formations might indeed limit how the superpower
faculties are perceived not for what they are, but only in accord
with the marginal limits of the concept configurations.
Alternative concept configurations are possible. For example, if the
superpower faculties principally involve the matter of awareness
margins, then our species has a long history of expanding them (as
well as contracting them in accord with societal uniformisms.)
It is also quite well understood (in the performing and mechanical
arts, for example) that perceptual boundaries can be expanded by
tutoring and training designed to do so.
More fundamentally, however, if the notion is entertained that each
specimen of our species is an individual intelligence-system, then
that system has to possess arrays of sensors replete with awareness
equipment that goes along with them.
The fact that the awareness equipment can be cropped back and
downsized to conform to this or that set of smaller-picture social
realities would not alter the species bigger picture in any enduring
What might occur, though, is an on-going conflict between downsizing
and upsizing of awareness margins—this conflict sometimes being
referred to as the on-going conflict between the individual and
Further consideration of the individual as an intelligence-system
now requires two forthcoming series of essays.
The first involves SYSTEMS in general.
The second involves two essays regarding the topic of MAPS OF THE
MIND with special reference to catalyst and synthesis qualities of
prepared and unprepared mind situations.
If one has the patient desire to do so, the contexts of this present
set of six essays can now be integrated with previous essays already
entered into this Website.
For example, it would be obvious that certain smaller-picture
configurations can act as "noise" within bigger-picture ones, and so
the essay regarding the signal-to-noise ratio can now take on wider
It would also be obvious that various mental information processing
grids might be littered or clogged up with smaller-picture
The nature of smaller-picture versus bigger-picture phenomena can
also be integrated into the contexts of the following essays (also
on this website) entitled:
"Non-conscious Participating in
Social Consensus Realities"
"Information Processing Viruses and Their Clones"
Back to Contents