The issue of telepathic overlay is very complicated at first if you know nothing about it. But after you know enough, it then becomes a rather simple matter.
It is the learning that is difficult, and for a number of reasons.
Among the first of those reasons is that the topic of REAL and ACTIVE telepathy is avoided in most societal contexts. One sees references to telepathy in fiction and in some few superficial non-fiction books. One even sees telepathy mentioned in parapsychology contexts, but parapsychology has no real important place within most mainstream societal contexts.
It is generally accepted that our species probably does have telepathic powers. But when one gets beneath the superficial treatment of telepathy, one finds that hardly any extensive and serious work has been undertaken in the direction of really sorting it out.
There are good probable reasons for the lack of really serious work regarding telepathy.
Certainly one of the reasons for the avoidance is that people fear having their minds read or invaded. After all, telepathy IS defined as mind-to-mind contact, and the mind- invasive principle is implicit in this definition.
Additionally, if telepathic contact with other minds is possible, then it IS but one short developmental step to one of the ugliest topics on Earth — mind-control.
It is quite probable, then, that people who fear having their minds (or what passes for them) invaded and read by a telepath probably not only don’t want telepaths around but don’t want the topic opened up for research and development.
As it turns out, then, not very much is really known about telepathy, most probably for the reasons above. I can make this statement because I’ve spent many years tracking down information not only about telepathy and its many types, but information about social treatment of it and its close relationship to other related topics.
It is helpful here at the start to point up that although telepathy is delicately defined as mind-to-mind, it more literally might be defined as from one mind INTO another mind.
Parapsychologists occasionally have studied the mind-to- mind thing. But other types of research have considered the mind INTO another mind thing.
Some of those other types of research have included those of mental influences, mind-control, mob and mass psychology, telepathic contamination, and various forms of subconscious and subliminal study.
In the contexts of remote viewing, telepathic overlay would introduce into the responses of a remote viewer a kind of dirty-data contamination originating in the mind of someone else.
The pathway for the contamination probably would not be a conscious one, but a subconscious one.
So the telepathic introduction of the dirty data would take place without much realization on the parts of anyone associated with the viewing. [You may wish to refer to my essay regarding the Signal-to Noise Ratio already available.]
Before going on, I’m obliged to point up a peculiarity I’ve observed during the many years remote viewing was under research and development.
It is this:
SOME will get what telepathic overlay means and implies even though very little is said about it; OTHERS will never get it no matter how much is said of it.
People with very strong and overpowering egos usually reject the possibility of telepathic overlay, as do those who don’t seem to have any naturally active superpowers of bio-mind.
It should also be mentioned that telepathic overlay has extensive meaning to situations outside of remote viewing contexts. As you will see below, it is only by touching upon some of those situations that what is meant by telepathic overlay can be fleshed out.
There is one other important reason why it would be difficult to comprehend the meanings of telepathic overlay as that phenomenon relates to remote viewing. This has to do with understanding remote viewing itself, what it really is versus what many think it to be. I’ll address this particular issue near the end of this essay.
The most generally accepted definition of TELEPATHY holds that it consists of the apparent communication from one mind to another otherwise than through the channels of the senses.
I have taken this definition from a perfectly respectable dictionary. So two of its initial and all- encompassing flaws must be pointed up.
First, it is difficult to comprehend how “the channels of the senses” can be subtracted from the telepathic equation since some kind of sensory mechanisms must be involved if communication from one mind gets into another mind.
We do have subconscious and subliminal senses, and so this flaw in the definition probably should be corrected to read “otherwise than through the channels of the physical, conscious senses.”
In this context, it’s worth noting that specimens of our species can be described in many ways. And one of those descriptions can easily hold that each specimen is a walking, talking bio-mind organism replete with astonishing arrays of “senses,” and most of which have NOT been identified.
Indeed, it’s not too much to say that we are highly designed and extremely refined sensory machines both as regards bio-body and its internal sensing apparatus and mechanisms.
Just because most have not learned to identify and develop MOST of their inherent sensing systems and channels is no reason to exclude telepathic “communication” from “channels of the senses.”
As to the second flaw, the accepted definition above leaves one with the conviction that that telepathy exclusively involves MIND.
But that involves what one thinks the mind is and is not. And in that regard many past definitions of the mind are entirely questionable — while many of them have been abandoned anyway.
In any event, MIND itself has a number of definitions, as many as twenty or more in some sources.
But it is commonly understood as (1) the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills and, especially, reasons; and (2) the conscious events and capabilities in an organism.
Subliminal and subconscious researchers will think those two major definitions are hilarious — pointing up that the activities and qualities incorporated in those definitions are but the merest tip of the profound iceberg of Mind.
As it is, however, when it is said that telepathy is mind-to-mind contact, the above definitions imply CONSCIOUS perception or awareness of something telepathic. The above definitions also imply that if we cannot consciously identify something as being telepathic, then telepathy doesn’t exist.
In this regard, that there may be subconscious or pre- conscious telepathy of which one is unaware sort of falls by the wayside. The idea of subconscious or subliminal telepathy is thus somewhat alien to the usual concepts of telepathy.
A third complicating factor regards the following. After intuition, telepathy is the second most commonly experienced of the superpowers of the human bio-mind.
But like intuition, a careful study of historical and living testimony about telepathy reveals that there are very many types of it, and not all of which can be incorporated into the standard definition of conscious mind to conscious mind.
There is thus a spectrum of telepathy, and which spectrum can best be described as varieties of information exchanging at either the conscious or pre-conscious levels.
The above having thus been said, we must now get to work to dig deeper into what is involved.
In the cultural West immediately before the term “telepathy” was coined (in 1882), the information exchanging was called thought-transference.
The exact meaning of that earlier term is important — for it involved two concepts that went missing after thought- transference was renamed telepathy.
In the thought-transference model, those two concepts were SYMPATHETIC STATES and RAPPORT.
It was accepted that if two or more people became involved in sympathetic states or rapport, then transference of thoughts and EMOTIONS could be exchanged — even though the mechanisms involved were not easily identifiable.
The concepts of the existence of sympathetic states and rapport can be traced back into antiquity (under other terms, of course.) But the concepts were named as such during the High Renaissance and from that time they ultimately followed through into the study and research of Mesmerism.
In general, the Mesmerism model was almost completely involved with researching the causes and effects of sympathetic and rapport states — and which, it was discovered, could be induced by various methods.
The hypothetical mechanisms of information exchange were thought to consist of sympathetic states and rapport during which something “fluidic” took place between two or more people.
The sympathetic and rapport states were themselves thought of as fluidic — or, as might be said today, altered states of consciousness, during which people become somewhat aware that altered states seem to flow into and out of each other.
Anton Mesmer is best remembered as the so-called discoverer of hypnotism — but which in fact was adapted from his work by later researchers and is a rather gross form of the subtle states the Mesmerists worked with.
As hypnotism is understood, though, it is a state which needs to be induced in someone by another person, the hypnotist — and after which the hypnotee is under the control of the hypnotist.
A large number of studies regarding the effects of hypnosis clearly establish that the hypnotee not only responds to the conscious commands of the hypnotist, but also is often found to be in telepathic rapport with the unexpressed or subconscious motives and agendas of the hypnotist.
This type of thing is occasionally referred to as telepathic bonding at levels beneath the consciousness of the hypnotist.
But if we introduce the concept of telepathic overlay, then it could be said that some kind of information overlay from the hypnotist is being transferred to the hypnotee via telepathic routes that are not known to or even suspected by the hypnotist.
As a gross example of this, the hypnotee then gives the answers the hypnotist wants, or which answers fit into the unexpressed expectations and convictions of the hypnotist which have somehow become overlaid into the hypnotee.
There can be no doubt, however, that ALL hypnoid states are also sympathetic and rapport states in which the telepathic exchanges of information can and do result in ways which not only include conscious but subconscious content.
As we shall see ahead, deep hypnosis or even light hypnosis is not necessary for this kind of telepathic overlay to take place. Such can occur as a result of even light rapport and which would not be considered as hypnotic.
Moving back now to 1882, the scientific concept had come to the fore that the brain was the mechanism for everything. And so early psychical researchers wished to emulate that concept in order better to be seen as scientific. One cannot really blame them, for the rapport of the modern scientific model had infected almost the whole of the Western world.
However, sympathetic and rapport states were considered as unscientific — belonging, as scientific spokesmen said, to the pre-scientific and superstitional past.
In order to escape from the so-called “unscientific” past regarding thought-transference, the early psychical researchers wished to abandon the thought-transference model.
So they theoretically redefined the concept by calling it telepathy — and which was first advertised as inter- communication between brain and brain by means other than that of the ordinary sense channels.
As it happened about the same time, the concept of radio and radio broadcasting had come to the fore, and which concept was definitely scientific. Radio broadcasting involved sending and receiving equipment via which information could be sent out across distances and picked up by receiving equipment.
This seemed an ideal analogy for telepathy. So telepathy (actually empathy broadcast or sent across distance) came to be thought of as brain sending across distance to another receiving brain.
The radio model of sending and receiving signals across distances has since been thought of as the definition of telepathy.
The concept of “brain-to-brain” was modified after World War I to “mind-to-mind” when the then-new field of psychology began emerging in strength.
After that, psychiatrists dealt with brain, but psychologists dealt with mind. Hardly any psychiatrists entered into psychical and parapsychological research. And so the whole of what was involved became a problem in psychology — and from which arose para-psychology and which studied the so-called “paranormal” phenomena of the Mind.
Now it is very important to point up that, as a result of all those conceptual and nomenclature changes, the old model which incorporated sympathetic states and rapport vanished altogether.
To my knowledge, it was only the earlier Soviet researchers of the 1920s and 1930s who reinstated those two important factors, recombining them into their novel definitions of bio-communications. The West, including the US, has not yet reconsidered and restored them into the prevailing concepts of parapsychology and telepathy.
So the phenomena and effects of rapport and sympathetic states are not generally recognized. However, you can satisfy yourself along these lines by attempting to identify situations characterized by sympathetic and rapport states, but which are not otherwise recognized as such.
Within the contexts of all of the above, then, the problem or the situation of telepathy is, first of all, a matter of sympathetic states and rapport.
RAPPORT is defined as relation marked by harmony, conformity, accord or affinity.
SYMPATHETIC is defined as (1) existing or operating through an affinity, interdependence, or mutual association; (2) showing or being linked by empathy; and (3) sensitivity to the emotions or moods of others.
If we add to this “empathic sensitivity to the thought- forms or thoughts of others,” then we do arrive at a combined, approximate definition of telepathy — one which goes far beyond the simplistic mind-to-mind thing.
Within the remote viewing contexts, TELEPATHIC OVERLAY would consist of picking up on information from someone else’s head and mistaking that information for the “signal.” The SIGNAL, of course, would consist of information pertinent to the distant location or “target.” Picking up on “signals” from someone else’s head and accepting them for the RV signals can be called telepathic overlay.
The question now emerges: Does this kind of thing happen? Yes, it certainly does — but only within certain kinds of circumstances.
Accessing the target information is the goal of remote viewing. Accessing any other kind of information is “noise,” in the sense of being contamination which distorts the clear reception of actual signals.
Accessing telepathic overlay information is therefore noise — and, as it might easily be understood, would be quite deadly to the remote viewing faculties, processes, and results of RV.
Please see my essay regarding the Signal-to Noise Ratio.
As discussed in other of my database essays, the Signal- to-Noise Ratio is fully involved here.
Telepathic overlay is not the only form of noise which degrades the remote viewing signals.
But it can be an important noise source if the ostensible remote viewer is unaware that telepathic overlay not only exists but does so in very subtle ways.
Where telepathic overlay is present, its information content OVERLAYS and contaminates the signal line, usually obscuring the latter from cognitive perception of the viewer.
Beyond its debilitating effects on the remote viewing faculties, telepathic overlay is very interesting of and within itself — and is also meaningful regarding the entire spectrum of superpowers of the human bio-mind.
Telepathic overlay was identified by myself and Dr. H.E. Puthoff in about 1975, and together we worked to determine its causes, its relationship to remote viewing, and how to avoid or eradicate it.
We were quite concerned that the viewer was picking up information from the minds of those associated with the viewings rather than from the distant site itself.
This was also a problem which worried the sponsors very much, and for reasons which should be obvious.
If telepathic overlay was the case, then we didn’t have remote viewing at all. We had some format of telepathy.
At first we felt that the sources or causes must be quite complicated. But in the end we discovered that a single situation was the source of most telepathic overlay. When that situation was cured, telepathic overlay tended to vanish.
That single situation revolved around Who had power over Whom not only during the RV work but as regards the relationships of all involved.
In other words, the telepathic overlay situation somewhat resembled the subtle telepathic situation of the hypnotist and the hypnotee.
The hypnotist was in power-control of the situation AND the hypnotee. The hypnotee was in some kind of rapport with the hypnotist in which the hypnotee accepted the commands and suggestions of the hypnotist.
The hypnotist expected the hypnotee to follow commands and suggestions — which the hypnotee usually did.
But another unexpected effect could be observed regarding a subliminal or subconscious transfer of information from the hypnotist to the hypnotee. The hypnotee often became telepathically connected to the motives, agendas, and desires of the hypnotist.
To aid in clarifying this, we now have to distinguish between:
(1) telepathy which one or both parties might be consciously aware of, and
(2) subconscious or subliminal telepathy which neither the hypnotee nor the hypnotist are consciously aware of (and which might be termed sub-telepathy to distinguish it from the former.
Regarding these possibilities and their implications to remote viewing being studied at SRI, several psychologists and hypnotists were consulted regarding this matter. It was generally agreed that something of the kind could account for telepathic overlay contaminating remote viewing sessions.
It is well understood in psychology that if one person has suggestive power over another, the latter will not only accept the suggestions (or commands) but often will somehow mysteriously emulate that person in more subtle ways. The controllee will often sense the controller’s wishes, desires and wants without their being vocalized.
The whole of this is a kind of rapport, and certainly a type of sympathetic state with the controller.
Controllees often go so far as to non-consciously emulate the controller’s dress, posture, preferences, mannerisms, and etc.
Thus, what we termed telepathic overlay regarding remote viewing has a larger picture and an historical past under many other names in that the whole of this is typical of what is sometimes called charismatic influencing.
Charismatic influencing is also a situation regarding who has power over whom, even if only very subtly so. Charismatic influencing is also a situation which involves rapport and sympathetic states.
Telepathic overlay regarding remote viewing cannot really be understood unless the particular problem it represents is cast against a larger picture and which must be precisely defined.
This larger picture consists of whether the human species is a telepathic species and, as such, is susceptible to sub-telepathic situations and conditions which exist and function beneath conscious awareness of them.
It is thus necessary in this essay to present some evidence of this general sub-telepathic potential — none of which, by the way, is found in parapsychology studies and documents.
To my knowledge, the first really scientific approach to what was involved took place between the two World Wars (essentially between about 1924 and 1938) when studies regarding MOB BEHAVIOR were funded and undertaken.
The concept of MASS BEHAVIOR was shortly added to the studies. The two concepts were scientifically dignified as “mob psychology” and “mass psychology.”
Both mob and mass behavior demonstrate quite remarkable phenomena, and one particular phenomenon seems to stand out regarding both types of behavior.
This has to do with the removing of individuals from their individualizing sense of logic, reason and common sense — and somehow replacing those with a sense of emotional participation which is collective and rapport-like rather than individualizing in nature.
This type of thing was first referred to as EMOTIONAL RAPPROCHEMENT, the latter word meaning to bring together — and, in the case of mob and mass psychology to bring emotionally together in a shared rapport or sympathetic kind of way.
But mob and mass behavior are also characterized by their intensity, and in this regard the term RAPTURE is fitting. It means “a state or experience of being carried away by overwhelming emotions.” The distinctions between “rapture” and “rapport” are quite narrow. The rapture of violence in mob psychology was, of course, a noted characteristic of mob behavior when the shared anger sentiments had reached saturation and began being acted out collectively.
The term eventually settled on was ENTRAINMENT — which is somewhat difficult of definition and whose psychological meaning is often not found in dictionaries.
In its pristine sense, ENTRAIN simply means “to get on a train.” But when used in a psychological meaning, it obviously refers to thinking, acting, and responding in ways which are collective rather than individual — in ways which are quite like sympathetic or rapport states. It was this type of thing which was meant by entrainMENT.
And in this sense, although entrainment can be thought of as intellectual, it usually refers to emotional or EMPATHIC subconscious strata of our species whose potentials are far more collectivizing than are individualistic logic, reason and common sense.
The use of the term “empathic” in mob behavior research documents brought the whole problem very close to some kind of telepathy — whose original definition was empathy communicated between human specimens across a distance by means unknown.
Researchers of the early 1930s distinguished between mob and mass psychology. The mob was out of control, hence unpredictable and dangerous. The mass was under control, or at least some modicum of it, and not therefore dangerous.
But other than this, the real distinctions between mob and mass behavior are quite similar, in that mass behavior can quite easily disintegrate into mob behavior replete with riots, violence and other destructive whatnot.
The early researchers of mob psychology brought their work up to the point where it was realized that mob behavior was somehow infectious in ways which were decidedly NOT visible or easily accounted for.
A perfectly sensible person could become incorporated within the mysterious collectivizing dynamics of a mob and become “entrained” at a rough emotional level which was somehow susceptible to taking on board those rough emotions.
The person then became a sympathetic participant, an entrained one, and began manifesting rough, and usually gross, emotional behavior out of keeping with common sense, logic and reason.
Some of the early researchers began supposing that mob and mass behavior could be explained only by introducing a psychic hypothesis — a psychic telepathic “something” which would account for the entrainment-like infection.
I’m obliged to point up that the words “psychic” and “telepathic” WERE used, and that in this essay they have not been invented by myself and retrospectively applied to the research of the 1930s.
I’m also obliged to point up that the introduction of a “psychic hypothesis” regarding any form of human behavior was taboo in all mainstream formats of modern research during the 1930s — and is still taboo today.
As it back then turned out, after the need for a psychic hypothesis had been indicated, it appears that ALL research in this area ceased, due, one might suppose, to the political incorrectness of this hypothesis, and/or withdrawal of funding because of it.
In any event, the rigors of World War II soon intervened, and a great deal of research in these areas ceased altogether. Rather roughly speaking, this kind of research resurfaced after the War, but under the concepts of mind-control and behavior modification. Mind-control exponents thought that a psychic hypothesis was not necessary, and who anyway do not study mob psychology.
Both mind-control and behavior modification are, at base, essentially problems regarding who is to have power over whom.
The psychic hypothesis of the early mob psychology researchers focused on the possibility of some kind of subtle, non-conscious telepathic hookups or channels.
At the subconscious emotional response levels, individuals were sensitive to the “entrainment factors” which “infected” all or most of those exposed to them — and which reduced individuals back into some kind of collective, hive-like behavior.
There is only one suitable word for this: RAPPORT — via which sympathetic sub-telepathic infections can be induced into those, well, into those infected by them.
We have seen by now that the concept of rapport is obviously important to all telepathic matters. But it is a term rarely encountered in research today — except in subliminal research where researchers are quite aware that human specimens are subliminally connected by various kinds of subconscious rapport states although not at all conscious of being so.
Indeed, it is the existence of rapport which helps in many ways to distinguish between INTUITION and TELEPATHY, the two superpowers of the human bio-mind which are most frequently experienced world-wide.
The term INFECT is unpopular regarding telepathic stuff, because in its first definition it is largely taken to mean CONTAGIOUS in ways which contaminate or corrupt. Even so, regarding telepathic overlay and remote viewing, the former would contaminate the latter, and there is hardly any other way around this phenomenon.
But there is a second definition regarding INFECT: to work upon or seize upon so as to induce sympathy, belief, or support.
And INDUCED sympathy puts us within the realms of sympathetic states, rapport, and entrainment — whether such are consciously perceived or subconsciously present in some kind of a psycho-active way.
And all of this is not very far removed from the “psychic hypothesis” of the early researchers of mob psychology — an hypothesis seeking to explain the infectious telepathic nature of the overpowering emotionality which literally sucks people into subconscious entrainment and participation.
One of the on-going situational problems regarding telepathy is that there are many different kinds of it — only a few of which seem to fit in with the sender-receiver model.
In the past, I was able to identify some thirty-five or thirty-six kinds of telepathy — some of which, for example, show that information can be ABSORBED without being either “sent” or “received.” From this latter category can be derived the concept of “telepathic osmosis” — OSMOSIS referring to a process of absorption or diffusion suggestive of the FLOW of osmotic action.
We need only to suppose that such a kind of telepathic osmosis can exist at the subconscious levels — and thus we achieve the model for the existence of telepathic overlay regarding remote viewing.
And at this point we also arrive back at the discarded concept that thought-transference (of thought AND emotion and empathy) entails some kind of “fluidic” mechanism.
In this sense, what we call telepathy appears to exist along a spectrum of some kind. Subconscious telepathy would absolutely have to be included in this spectrum.
The concept of subconscious mind-linking (as opposed to conscious or intellectual mind-linking) would actually serve better to bring the existence of this spectrum into better view. People can say that they are not telepathically linked consciously — but they well may be subconsciously.
I suppose that mind-linking may more easily be thought of as intellectual agreement. But it is quite easy to show that other formats of mind-linking exist with or without intellectual agreement.
As an example of one kind of mind-linking that is never thought of as telepathic entrainment, it can easily be observed that an individual who personally is very charismatic can, even without trying to do so, induce certain entrainment states in his or her followers.
Examples are very numerous along these lines. Such a charismatic individual can utter the most amazing nonsense – – but even so can accumulate a dedicated, hypnoid-like following whose entrained members will give up everything in order to be part of it.
Thus, it can be witnessed that charismatic examples of our species can have some kind of telepathic power over others, a type of power which is explainable only by introducing a psychic hypothesis consisting of rapport and sympathetic states.
So, IF telepathy EXISTS at all, then one has to be somewhat backward to think that it exists only when one is cognitively aware of it, or that it exists only when an experiment to test for it is set up.
And if one examines for the many different types of telepathy, then one has to be slightly addled to accept that the conscious sender-to-receiver model is the ONLY model for it.
As a result of all that has been discussed so far, we can now reexamine the definition of TELEPATHY.
The word TELEPATHY actually means empathy across distance (tele-). “Empathy” refers to (1) the capacity for participating in another’s feelings or ideas, and (2) the projection of a subjective state so that those affected by the projection themselves appear to be infused with it.
It is unfortunate, though, that what the “subjective state” consists of has never really been identified — largely because no one comprehends what it consists of. And for that matter no one really knows what empathy consists of, either.
However, a careful reading of the two definitions given just above will reveal that they mean something far different than so-called mind-to-mind contact or so-called mental telepathy.
Clearly the projection of (1) conscious mind content (2) empathic states, (3) subjective states, and (4) subconscious sympathy and rapport are FOUR entirely different sectors of the telepathic spectrum of the superpowers of the human bio-mind.
For one thing, empathy is FELT, not thought about. And in the bio-mind systems feelings are subconsciously processed quite differently than conscious thinking.
And feelings-empathic are transmitted quite more easily than conscious thinking as well. After all, thinking has to be understood to be processed. Feelings and empathy and subjective states do not need to be understood.
Love and hate, both mostly consisting of subjective states, are often thought of as “contagious,” but for reasons that are quite mysterious and completely unidentified — unless the sub-telepathic hypothesis is admitted.
But even so, all formats of telepathy appear to have their basis in empathetic and rapport states. For one thing, it might be noticed that telepathy of any kind is hardly ever reported between people who are not sympathetic, or are out of rapport with, each other.
Now, in the light of all that has been discussed above, the question remains regarding remote viewing and telepathic overlay and how to eliminate the latter.
To discuss this, we have to incorporate the probable existence of conscious AND subconscious telepathic information.
We also have to incorporate, theoretically at least, the high probability that subconscious telepathy goes on all of the time.
We also have to resort to the hypnotist-hypnotee model and the concept of who is to have power over whom.
Regarding the hypnotist-hypnotee model, it is easy enough to consider that subconscious telepathic information flows FROM the hypnotist TO the hypnotee — meaning that the hypnotist’s signals will overlay those of the hypnotee.
In this sense, the hypnotist’s signals will be duplicated by the hypnotee, and the latter’s subconscious systems will respond accordingly.
This may be the same as saying that the weaker is influenced by the stronger — and this IS unambiguously the formula for who is to have power over whom even though many manifestations of this formula are very subtle.
But this is almost the same as considering who goes into rapport with whom, for if the weaker is influenced by the stronger, then the weaker has gone into rapport with the stronger.
If subconscious telepathic signals are involved, which they are most likely to be, then the signals flow from the stronger to the weaker — which is to say, flow from those accepted as having power to those accepted as having none or very little.
Now, in the typical parapsychology laboratory situation, consisting of experimenters and test subjects, the experimenters are accepted as having governing power. It is THEY who are conducting the experiments, while the subjects are just participating in them as guinea pigs.
In the first instance, the subjects do want to please the experimenters — and so one of the bases for rapport comes into existence.
The experimenters then tell the subjects what to do, when to do it, and for how much and for how long.
If the subjects have gone into rapport with the experimenters, a variety of strange situations then ensue.
A number of those situations have, to their credit, been investigated by parapsychologists themselves — but without including the possibilities of sympathetic and rapport states which are politically incorrect within science itself.
If, for example, it was discovered after the fact of the experiment that an experimenter did not expect the subject to succeed, then the subject usually didn’t — even though the same subject occasionally succeeded elsewhere under other more positive experimenter auspices.
In such a case, it is quite feasible to suspect the existence of telepathic overlay at the subconscious level in which the experimenter’s expectation of non-success somehow overlaid the subject’s effort.
Indeed, many subjects themselves have stated that they cannot perform if someone involved in the experiment is sensed as “negative” either consciously or non-consciously.
Within this context, it might be assumed that if the experimenter through and through wants the subject to succeed, then the subject ought to be able to produce stunning results. Something here does depend on the subject’s capabilities in the first place.
But if rapport has been established, then it is quite probable that the subject will do no better than the experimenter could if he or she undertook the same experiment — because the experimenter’s incapability has telepathically overlaid the subconscious strata of the subject.
Most parapsychologists themselves are not “psychic.” Indeed, as a social subset of science in general, they have a commitment NOT to be psychic in order to retain their scientific objectivity.
Admittedly, the whole of this is quite subtle and many of its aspects are debatable — especially if the phenomena of sympathetic and rapport states are rejected to start with.
But the issue here is not experiments themselves or their power-dynamic pitfalls, but whether telepathic connectiveness does exist at other than conscious levels.
If it does, then much which usually is never taken into account, or even thought of, has to be brought up for serious consideration.
Another type of experiment which is sensitive to the power-dynamic pitfalls are those in which the experimenter guides, interrogates, or questions the subjects. Even though this relationship between experimenter and subject is not seen as a power one, there is no question about who is in power here — rather, who is in control.
And if rapport is to arise, there is no question of who is going to go into rapport with whom. If the existence of sympathetic and rapport states is accepted, then it is easy enough to see that the subject could easily go into rapport with his or her experimenter interrogator.
As it is, the general public has no idea of what actually goes on during a parapsychology experiment. Some small segment of the public may eventually see a report about it which will include the experimental design, protocols and results. The report is actually a selection of bits and pieces of the experiment made presentable.
But if the entire overall experimental process, its environment, and participating personnel were put on film, such would reveal that many experiments somewhat resemble a psychological zoo.
It would be seen that some, but certainly not all, experimenters have very little real interest in the subjects, but a great deal of interest regarding THEIR experiment. In my own experience of many years, even social graces are sometimes not observed regarding the subjects.
I’ve talked with many subjects who at first enthusiastically wanted to be “tested” via an experiment, but who felt they were a piece of crud afterward.
The role of the subject is, of course, to try to produce the phenomena the experimenters are after — and, in most cases, produce the phenomena the experimenters themselves cannot.
If you read between the lines of the paragraph above, and depending on who the experimenters are, including their particular egos and psychological balances, you can perhaps sense that some peculiar, subtle and difficult micro-social affects will arise — few of which are ever mentioned in reports of experimental design and results.
There is one word which will help bring together most of the elements which have been discussed in this essay: INTERACTIVE. This is taken from INTERACTION which means mutual or reciprocal action or influence.
Perfected interactive conditions are highly redolent of achieving complete rapport — and which is the basis for telepathic identification between the interactive personnel.
In the ideal parapsychology or remote viewing experimental session, the goal is to have the subject (or viewer) interact with the target materials or distant location.
For ease of reference here, we can say that the viewer is expected to exclusively communicate with the distant location or target.
However, if the local environmental factors of the experiment and personnel involved with the session also need to be interacted with by the subject or viewer, it is quite easy to comprehend that the communication with the target by the viewer can become split in gross and subtle ways.
And it is this splitting which permits the introduction of telepathic overlay — and especially if the role of a second person other than that of the viewer becomes influential and dynamic.
In the early days of remote viewing research at Stanford Research Institute, it was supposed that the viewer could benefit from being guided during a session by someone else. Which is to say, benefit by interacting with the guide.
Further down the line of research, this WAS to prove to be the beneficial case regarding tutoring in the techniques of remote viewing.
But after the trainee had acquired the techniques and had become exceedingly proficient in them, the active role of the tutor-guide then ceased altogether — and for reasons which should by now be obvious.
Before this had been understood, however, several effects of the guided remote viewing session were identified. For one thing, this particular model tended to increase the interactive dependency of the viewer on the guide (later referred to as the “monitor”).
This dependency effect sometimes became so grossly evident that the viewer ultimately said nothing unless prompted to do so by the monitor.
In this sense, then, the viewer was responding more to the monitor’s role than to the viewer’s role of exclusive contact with the distant location. The viewer’s exclusive interaction with the distant location had become split between the location and the guiding function of the monitor — and whose role was seen as interrogating the viewer about what was, or might be, at the distant location.
I will now illustrate some of the affects and difficulties of this guided method by condensing several of them into the following scenario.
The monitor asked the viewer if the site was a nuclear reactor or a computer research installation. “I don’t know,” replied the viewer. “Well, is it a nuclear reactor?” “Yes.” “Is it a computer research installation?” The viewer again replied “Yes.” At this point, the monitor assumed that the site was a nuclear reactor with computer support, and asked the viewer to describe what she was seeing. She did so in a way which ultimately was determined to somewhat match what the guide thought such a place should look like.
In experimental test situations like this, the monitor- guide did not know what was at the distant location — and which turned out to be the Golden Gate Bridge.
This, then, was not remote viewing. At the vocal interactive level, the viewer was clearly responding to the suggestions of the guide, more or less in the same way an hypnotee might respond to the suggestions of the hypnotist.
But at the non-vocal level the viewer proceeded to describe something which matched what the guide thought the nuclear reactor might look like.
Thus, we can describe two different kinds of interactive overlay, one of which was verbally determined and one of which fell into the wobbly category of telepathic overlay.
This guide-the-viewer procedure was undertaken in good faith by all concerned, and it certainly needed to be investigated, and in no sense did the guide-monitor consciously want to control the viewer nor did the viewer want to be controlled.
But in the final analysis it could be seen anyway that the focus of control-power had subtly shifted to the guide- monitor, that the viewer had probably fallen into sympathetic rapport with him, and thereafter the viewer did not interact with the distant location but with the conscious and subconscious mind of the monitor.
In this sense, then, the formula of who was to have power over whom was subtly present, even if no one involved consciously thought about implementing it.
The whole of this gave a good deal to think about — for unless something could be done to resolve what otherwise was a mess, then remote viewing would be up against a wall of perpetual telepathic contaminants coming from who knows where.
Up until that time, it seems that no one really realized, or didn’t admit to, the possibility that people are continuously interactive at some deep telepathic levels — and which levels are very interactive at least in sympathetic and rapport states.
Now, a diagram would be convenient here. Rather than use pixels to do so, I’ve discovered that I can erect simple forms of them with keys available on my keyboard. I will now try to construct one which incorporates most of what has been discussed in this essay.
Below I will construct two pyramids representing two people, and cast them against the formula of who is to have power over whom, in the stronger versus weaker sense.
You can assume that the stronger (S) will exert some kind of power over the weaker (W) — as in the case of the hypnotist-hypnotee, experimenter-subject, or monitor-viewer.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Interactive telepathic levels
. . . > .
. . . > .
. . . > .
As regards this arrangement of two people who might interact at the subconscious telepathic levels, if the weaker goes into rapport with the stronger, or is made to assume that status by some kind of social-environmental circumstances, then information would telepathically flow from the stronger to the weaker — as indicated by the three > marks.
There are, I think, some positive aspects to this — for example, in tutoring or educating, for anyone might wish to benefit from telepathic transfer of information via a good teacher.
But in many other instances, in remote viewing precisely, the transfer of information could be seen only as telepathic contamination.
Some form of this contamination might easily emerge if the viewer is dependent on the monitor for anything at all.
The way all of this was ultimately handled at SRI, as least so far as controlled remote viewing was concerned, was to shift the power relationship exclusively to the viewer in ways which TERMINATED his or her interaction with anyone else, even with the monitor.
This is to say that AFTER the viewer had been fully trained and could operate with high-stage proficiency, the viewer became the captain of the remote viewing ship — while the role of the monitor became very minimal indeed.
In other words, if telepathic overlay flowed from the stronger to the weaker (the impressionable, or the suggestible,) then the only feasible way to try to eliminate telepathic overlay was to create controlled remote viewers who could maintain themselves and their performance as the central power core of any viewing — and this regardless of whomever else might be involved around the edges of the viewing process.
After all, the CRV’er PRODUCES — whereas all else (including everyone else) is incidental to the product.
The only initial problem with all this was to get the potential RV’ers themselves and EVERYONE ELSE to agree to this. Almost everyone likes to direct something or someone in order to have a “place” within what is going on.
But there are earlier models for this. The concert pianist, for example, studies long and hard to achieve competency. But when that has been achieved, when he or she steps onto the performance platform it is his or her show. It is inconceivable that the pianist would need someone else standing by and directing what and when to do something.
Likewise, after the guru teaches the chela, the guru steps aside and does so voluntarily — at least in the ideal scene.
In any event, something along these lines WAS achieved regarding controlled remote viewing — and telepathic overlay vanished as a contaminating noise source, as did any form of suggestivity or influencing from others. The VIEWER controls the viewing, and ceases interacting with anyone else during it. Monitors make no attempt to interact with the viewer. Telepathic overlay vanishes.
It now has to be pointed up that there are two models for monitors regarding remote viewing: the TRAINING monitor and the FORMAL OPERATIONAL SESSION monitor. Unfortunately, as the years have lately unfolded these have become confused, and the latter model has disappeared.
The training monitor of course guides and instructs the potential remote viewing student — but only until he or she achieves various states of proficiency, and ultimately all of the states necessary to produce high-stage results WITHOUT any interference from anyone at all.
The role of the operational session monitor is thus very minimal, and is mainly constituted to serve the needs and demands of the achieved CRV’er.
Thus, while the training monitor at first has a great deal of power within the training mode, the role of the operational session monitor is practically nil.
More detailed descriptions of the discovery, realization, and amelioration of telepathic overlay will be included in my forthcoming Internet book REMOTE VIEWING, THE REAL STORY. What remote viewing actually is will be detailed in the book, and I dare say that many will find that it is something quite different from what they had assumed it to be.
The modern elements of thought-transference and traveling clairvoyance arose from research successors to Anton Mesmer during the early 1800s — and who studied sympathetic and rapport states during which the phenomena of both often manifested with exceeding clarity.
However, this is an epoch of history which has been almost totally erased from access.
Fortunately, the intrepid historian of such phenomena, Eric J. Dingwall, spent many years collecting all relevant documents still available from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia, Russia, Poland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Latin America, the United States and Great Britain.
He published this amazing collection in four volumes entitled ABNORMAL HYPNOTIC PHENOMENA (J. & A. Churchill, Ltd., 1967.)
Although these volumes may be hard to locate by now, I heartily recommend them to those ardently interested in the superpowers of the human bio-mind — a number of which are breathtakingly presented in them. And, furthermore, presented in ways strip away the cloying, simplistic stereotypes fashionable today.