What is meant by the term ‘psychic capability’? Is the conventional definition too limited in scope?
Is it possible that all humanity … for all time … possessed ‘psychic capability’? … with this trait evolving similar to human intelligence … unevenly distributed and expanding over time.
Carl Jung introduced the term “Collective Unconscious” …
“The collective unconscious is like this: inherited. It never came from our current environment. It is the part of the mind that is determined by heredity. So we inherit, as part of our humanity, a collective unconscious; the mind is pre-figured by evolution just as is the body. The individual is linked to the past of the whole species and the long stretch of evolution of the organism. Jung thus placed the psyche within the evolutionary process. Author Unknown
A growing community of individuals is currently exploring the notion of “Collective Consciousness” …
Robert Kenny defines the notion as: “Collective consciousness is a mode of awareness that emerges at the first transpersonal stage of consciousness, when our identities expand beyond our egos. A crucial capacity that accompanies this awareness is the ability to intuitively sense and work with the interactions between our and others energy fields, physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. For example, just as Gene Rodenberry imagined a future where Star Trek’s Spock could mind meld with others, more of us are now becoming aware of our capacity not only to intuit each other’s thoughts and emotions, but also to consciously think and create together without communicating through our five senses.”
Perhaps the dialogue we record here on ILP is simply a ‘hardcopy’ of a previous psychic dialogue in the Collective Consciousness?
Have you ever read a post that includes ‘thoughts’ that have been swirling around in your mind before you read the post?
Until we can put a bunch of ‘thoughts’ in a jar and observe their behavior … and their response to selective stimuli … all discussion is speculative.
Is speculation such a bad thing? How many instances of scientific break-through owe their genesis to speculation … in some cases the ‘science’ being realized hundreds of years after the initial speculation. Are some of DaVinci’s sketches testimony to this?
On with speculation.
Let’s assume people with common interests have the same thoughts.
Let’s also assume that the ‘thought traffic’ among this community of people with common interest grows and as a result the ‘common interest’ community grows … and so on and so on. Certainly this is sometimes the case with the spoken word and the written word …
When we read different philosophical views … often one particular view resonates stronger within our being than all the others. In this situation, are we learning something new or is it an instance of the Platonic doctrine of anamnesis … “explaining the basis of learning as bringing into consciousness what, from an earlier existence , the soul already knows.”
If a ‘mind’ can exercise it’s ‘will’ to propagate information via sound waves or text … why can’t the same mind achieve the same result via thought waves?
Begs the question … is it one ‘thought’ that travels from one mind to many? … or is it a clone of the original ‘thought’ that travels to each mind in the community? Does it matter?
At some point does a ‘thought’ reach critical mass and manifest itself in the physical realm? … as a spoken word? … a written word? … an object?
I think art, literature, poetry, architecture, and so on, are all expressions of thought, don’t you? And I happen to go along with Jung’s Collective Unconscious, to the extent that I’ve used it literary criticism.
But I also think that a lot of what is deemed ‘psychic ability’ comes from a keen ability to notice–to observe–much like in the TV show, The Mentalist. And, of course, there’s the fact that if people are together long enough, they can finish each other’s sentences–their ‘thoughts.’ I also believe that primitive man had a greater sense of smell (as well as being pretty smelly themselves) which allowed them to sense a lot of things with greater accuracy than we do now. Do we have remnants of those skills within our brain chemicals–in our DNA? In my mind, it’s pretty possible. But I don’t think we use it very often–at least not often enough to rely on our ‘intuition,’ in most cases.
Strongly agree … all fine examples of ‘human thoughts’ morphing into sound waves and images. Seems there has always been ‘stuff’ within the human mind that wants to be born. Where does all this ‘stuff’ come from?
You agree with Jung with respect to literature … suggests you don’t support his work on the notion of ‘synchronicity’ and his attempts to bridge the cosmos/human psyche gap?
Some people stretch the intention behind the word ‘intuition’ beyond ‘instinct’ and ‘pattern recognition’ … both grounded in our personal environment and experiences … to an undeveloped … yet bona-fide 6th sense … a conduit of information/intelligence that operates beyond the boundaries of our 5 senses? A fantasy?
Do you believe this ‘Higher Order’ has been guiding and directing humanity … nudging us in the direction it wants us to go?
David Korten writes … “We are in a race against time between the awakening of an Earth Community consciousness and spreading social and environmental collapse. Whether by intent or neglect, we humans will within this decade make an irrevocable choice that will determine our children’s future for millennia to come.”
p_t. I meant I’ve studied Jungian psychology only in so far as I could use his ideas for literary criticism. I’ve also thrown in a bit of de Chardin’s thoughts of the Oosphere, which are quite similar. Chardin posited a sphere of ‘thought’ surrounding the earth from which we all can draw. It’s kind of like what we have now with the internet. The thought is there.
Pere Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit priest and an anthropologist/paleontologist who lost favor in the scientific world because he was taken in by the Piltdown hoax. He also spent his life trying to get a Papal Imprimator for his work in reconciling the Biblical Creation myth with science. So you may not have heard of him.
I don’t know what Dan~ means by a “higher order,” so I can’t comment on his post. Given that, I don’t know whether or not I agree with the David Korten quote. Can you give us your interpretation and tell us why you quoted him?
Here’s the quote:
"We are in a race against time between the awakening of an Earth Community consciousness and spreading social and environmental collapse. Whether by intent or neglect, we humans will within this decade make an irrevocable choice that will determine our children’s future for millennia to come.”
What does that mean to you and how do you connect it with your title and OP?
As volchok said, people do share the same interests. And those who do, also just may read some of the same books that began that swirling of thoughts.
And really, there are a great many thoughts in here which might contain the same content - which you will find in other posts in here.
I’m not so sure about psychic capability. As lizbethrose said, I agree that what is considered ‘psychic’ may just be ‘a keen ability to notice’ or a great capacity to pay attention and to absorb what is going on around one or in the world at large. And an intelligent and logical human being would be able to perceive perhaps the only outcome that could come from that. Primitive man’s instincts were more akin to the animals’ than are ours now. They had to be to survive. Perhaps we’ve simply suppressed for the most part those important tools. We are not so close to nature as they were and our instincts have been driven below through technology.
I don’t think one has to have psychic powers in order to ‘foresee’ the future.
Liz … the name Pierre Teilhard crossed my path several years ago … I was intrigued by his ‘Omega Point Theory’. Unfortunately, as you know from my posts … I’m a ‘big picture’ person … don’t have the patience to examine and study any details … what’s the term in philosophical circles … ‘reductionism’?
Why I quoted him? First, perhaps a personal ‘backdrop’ … the past 20 years my life is best illustrated with an image. It feels like I have been sitting alone on a boat in the middle of the ocean … the sail is raised but I have no rudder.
Like many people … I often look back and reflect on my thoughts, decisions, actions and experiences. Looking for a pattern … looking for some logical … rational basis … that ‘connects the dots’. Still no reasonable answer.
This morning as I write this I’m getting the image of a ‘puzzle’. Seems to me … like you … I’m trying to put the puzzle together. Over time mankind has created … or at least been party to the creation … of a ‘zillion’ pieces to this puzzle. I have the conviction that somehow … someday … we will put it all together.
Though … it seems to me … we will never ‘put it all together’ by microscopically examining any particular ‘piece’ or subset of ‘common pieces’.
The result being I have no complete answer to “why I included the quotation from Kanter”. With hindsight I see some relevance to the OP and the dialogue.
First, clarification on some nomenclature … in my view, when we ‘name’ a thing or an activity … we are inclined to put the ‘thing’ or the ‘activity’ in a straight jacket … like the one they sometimes use in sanatoriums.
I want to avoid this inclination with the use of the words ‘psyche’ and ‘psychic’ … my use of the words is my attempt to portray the human mind … metaphorically … as a ‘node’ on a LAN … with some local intelligence … yet still reliant on a server or network of servers for additional intelligence. Of course, there are communication and ‘security clearance’ obstacles to overcome in my metaphor.
Now to some specifics … Kanter’s use of the words “Earth Community Consciousness” caught my attention. For me …these words resonated with the “local intelligence” in my above metaphor … human awareness.
Kanter’s words … “we are in a race against time” … resonated with my world view concerning the past 400 years or so … seems to me we have witnessed an acceleration in the acquisition of “local intelligence’ … human awareness. Nothing is ‘new’ per se … the ‘science’ we have learned has always been there … it was simply ‘out of range’ for the human mind. If true, I would attribute this ‘acceleration’ to the unfolding of the human capacity for psychic reception and transmission of information/intelligence.
In my view, the word ‘alien’ has too many unpleasant connotations … perhaps the ‘alien factions’ you see in your ‘mind’s eye’ are in fact friendly and kind. The advent of childbirth … new life … is painful for both the mother (earth) and the child (humanity).
I agree with everything you wrote as well … yet … a newborn infant must suckle at the breast for a while before he/she is capable of digesting solid food.
And why would a non-psychic person believe in psychic stuff? Can psychic experience be reproduced in non-psychic people? Cause that’s the kind of experiment the scientific method might propose. If it’s not possible, then what do you suggest - that non-psychic people just take the word of psychics?
Augustine claimed … “experience is the superior form of knowledge”
Reminds me of a North American First Nation’s proverb … “Never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins.” While we are inclined to pass judgement based on knowledge … seems some of the North American First Nations people(s) valued experience more. ??
Perhaps Augustine’s claim can also be validated in reality … eg … the toddler who … despite repeated warnings (teaching) of his mother … goes ahead and touches a hot stove. After touching the hot stove … the toddler needs no more warnings from his mother … the toddlers personal ‘experience’ was more effective than his mother’s sharing of her knowledge with her child.
Perhaps in a similar way … ‘human psychic capability’ is learned by personal experience. As I mentioned in an earlier post … human intelligence is distributed unevenly among people(s) … always has been … and many would argue that it has also expanded over time.
Is it such a stretch of our imagination to see ‘human psychic capability’ with a similar pattern … simply not unfolding simultaneously with human intelligence?
We seem to have no problem embracing the notion that all people have some ‘intelligence’ … accepting that some intelligence is hardwired into the biology of our brain … some learned … and some ??? I read somewhere that Einstein claimed his theory of relativity came to him in a vision … don’t know if this is true.
The metaphor of an iceberg has long been used to differentiate between the conscious part of the human mind and the subconscious(psyche). Our understanding of the human mind … both biology … and psyche-ology has expanded exponentially in the past 100 years or so. Yet perhaps even today we are still only dealing … scientifically at least … with the ‘tip of the iceberg’. While the field of study known as psyche-ology marches on … mostly creating new ‘pigeon holes’ … from empirical studies … to label psyche-ological conditions.
Is it logical … rational … to suggest our 5 senses can only grasp and understand the ‘tip of the iceberg’? Subsequently restricting most intellectual dialogue, debate, analysis etc to a small part of the ‘whole’ … in the metaphor … the whole iceberg.
All intelligent and informed people are likely to agree that our ‘psyche’ … whatever it is … influences our behaviour … our thoughts, decisions and actions. The million dollar questions being … what exactly is our ‘psyche’ … what are the governing laws of nature that control our psyche … and to what extent does ‘psyche’ influence human thought, decisions and actions?
For me … ‘psychic capability’ falls under the category … what are the governing laws of nature (universal laws) that control our ‘psyche’.
Is that akin to saying that the only people who would never believe in aliens are those who have never had an ‘alien’ visitation?
Wouldn’t an investigator of psychic phenomenon withhold judgment and belief - but simply look at the evidence and still without judgment? Unless of course he was so desperate to prove his point. And then he would have to ask himself - Why?
As an authority figure, you do realize how our beliefs can muddy the lenses of our perception, don’t you?
If the mind isn’t physical it is likely to be everywhere, unrestricted by the physical. Our consciousnesses utilise it and centralise it to gather information about the world. The mechanism is; ‘mind > info > object’, and we are the mind being centralised by the consciousness which is an object based informational network.
Mostly then, we gather info as related to objects ~ neurons, signals, and our DNA provides the basis or primary infant personality, but I don’t see how that is what gives us a connection to other minds and things out there. For me its all about the connection of mind to info, if we can make a connection to info which doesn’t derive from our own conscious system, that’s what its all about.
For that we first need to become detached such that our perception can ’relax’, become still, and experience mind on an interpersonal level. Then we need to ask questions and as I see it answers will come. This is because we are using the very same mechanism by which the mind relates to information, but we are doing it in a non-centralised manner.
Imho psychics and tarot readers etc, etc, are connecting to such occult informations, it doesn’t mean there is [or is not] anyone there.
Now consider that we live in an informational universe necessarily with a communicative layer, and for me making a connection to that is what its all about; druidic learning/visionary philosophy. that’s how I use it, so I don’t know if there is anything more to how psychics use it? They may be connecting to dead people, though I think the ancestral spirit is a collective [rather than individualised] ~ so perhaps that’s what Jung meant?
Elsewhere on this site you’ll find the mountain of scientific evidence in my favor, and the pure arm-waving “skeptical” sophistry I roll over every time someone calls me out for presenting it. Multiple threads where I touch on this from various angles.
If you go outside of this site you’ll find 100 years worth of science that semi-points in my favor, and then a bunch in the last 10 that unequivocally does. You’ll find historical evidence like how Stalin employed psychics, and how the US copied that program and started their own CIA squad that is featured in fucking dozens of documentaries, TV shows, news reports, etc. You’ll find Bell’s Theorem. You’ll find it all if you bother to look instead of asking an Authority Figure. We don’t explain those things because it’s not in the agenda.
Don’t take that tone of voice with me, Mr. There is a lot you don’t know because of one fucking reason: you never bothered to look.
To be desperate to prove a point I’d have to think I have a chance at making it to a given audience.
I truly stopped knowing if I could years ago, so I truly don’t know if I’m desperate. I do know I explicitly frame things in a way to get the most responses, though. There is a thin line between expending enough energy to write out what I know (My work as a writer, and I write 8 hours a day, so my hands literally get tired) and to write out something that should motivate anyone halfway interested in their own development to throw a couple things into google.
I can get away with this because my understanding of the world is genuine, and people can sense that. If not no one would respond to me because at an instinctual level they would know they are not getting anything beneficial in return.
Well, in this case - yes. I was only using the word ‘desperate’ with reference to those who are merely more interested in ‘proving that they are correct’ rather than those for whom the topic itself is more important.
Well, you might not know for sure but you have to feel that you are to some greater degree fully capable of getting your point across. And you might not be ‘desperate’ to do it but you might hold it as something really important to you - a goal to be reached. That doesn’t speak of desperation.
Yes, as a writer, you would have that talent to frame things.
I’m not quite sure I understand the second paragraph. What makes for that thin line?
I don’t know that this would simply depend on your being genuine - as I know you are or how beneficial it is - it would also depend on their interests. Sometimes we throw our pearls before the swine.
I cant remember the last time I saw a scientific experiment that focussed on information [apart from that drawn from objects, chemicals etc]. certainly one where background info was being read and understood, we don’t even know the language of it yet.
On the other had, if psychics did know the language, then their interpretation could be seen in scientific experimentation. I don’t know though, if you set the conditions you determine the results, so psychic abilities may not be read that way. Not that I don’t think 98% of them aren’t charlatans.
My clairvoyant said she saw a plane and the clinking of glasses; I was about to take a trip to new Zealand to meet a lover. It didn’t happen in the end, but I’d say she described the potential fully [there was more detail too].
Yup. There’s only so much time in a day, in a life. When I get home from work, yeah, I’d rather go for a walk with my dog, play a video game, go out with a friend, look for interesting threads on ILP, watch a free university lecture on a subject that interests me, etc. than spend my evening looking up psychic phenomena because some people swear “the truth is out there.” I mean maybe astronauts never landed on the moon. I think I have a friend or two who believe that. But I can’t possibly put in the time or the effort to try to verify every suggested conspiracy or miraculous phenomenon. So yeah, feel free to imply that I must be intellectually lazy. I think the truth is that you find that stuff interesting and I don’t. Why would you spend your time on something you find unremarkable when you have better things to do? But look, I’m not anti-paranormal. Whatever we’re calling “psychic” phenomena, these things can be studied empirically and people will study them. I just think I’d rather spend my time doing other things. If you have psychic intuition and I don’t, then you should understand that I am somewhat disadvantaged in my awareness. If that were the case, It would be up to you and those with comparable abilities to invent ways of enlightening unaware people like me. If you really wanted to communicate this knowledge of psychic phenomena to others, you would assume the role of a teacher, or a guide. But I hardly ever see you doing anything other than ranting puffing and condescending. Maybe that’s how you’ve come to use ILP. Ok. But most people can tell when another person actually wants to share knowledge or, alternatively, when he just wants to sit above and look down on others. Maybe we’re just psychic like that.
