The Sixth Sense is Not a Sense!
Jeff Mishlove
Back in the 1930, the metaphor "mental radio" was popularized by the author Upton Sinclair was a way of thinking about extrasensory perception and telepathy. He wrote an excellent book that has recently been republished. Still, we know now that "mental radio" is also a metaphor of limited validity -- as the data found in the psi research laboratory (for example, precognition) cannot be explained in terms of electromagnetic waves.
Today, we have new metaphors. And, I believe that these also are inadequate. The sixth sense is not a sense. Remote Viewing is not viewing. Both of these metaphors imply that we have hidden sensory organs -- and that sensory information is somehow reaching us from distant locations. But, of course, there is no evidence to support either of these inferences -- in spite of the good data for the existence of paranormal anomalies. In effect, the "sixth sense" and "remote viewing" are both metaphors for something far more profound and mysterious than the metaphor allows.
I am developing a new hypothesis that the parapsychological data associated with old terms such as "clairvoyance," "remote viewing," "telepathy," may be better described as examples of synchronicity -- a term originally coined by the great, Swiss psychiatrist, Carl G. Jung.
In fact, I would also say that synchronicity may be the best explanation for data that is often used to support theories concerning the survival of human personality after death -- and even reincarnation.
Synchronicity is well-established, by Carl Jung himself, as a viable explanatory principle for the effectiveness of systems of divination such as the I Ching. I would take this argument even further and hypothesize that synchronicity is the best underlying explanation we have for almost all of the good data in parapsychology.
Access: Public
carl jung
July 2008
Yeah, I undertsnd what you are suggesting, altho I think you would agree that you are just beginning to explain your model of how this works.
For instance, there are two classes of synchronicities to consider, the first is information synchronicity, where by ‘coincidence’ accurate information is suddenly available to the mind, and the other is action synchronicity, where by ‘coincidence’ some event occurs.
Jung’s famous “knocks in the library” being an example of action synchronicity.
And there are other things to consider too -experiences with the appearance of telepathy or clairvoyance could be a ‘complex system’ which includes a bunch of signals and thougt processes, perhaps in addition with “synchronicity”, to produce the whole effect of the experience.
But, I’ll be interested in reading whatever your arguments are going to be.
Bill, you’re right. I am just beginning to develop this model of “archetypal synchronistic resonance.”
And, I rather suspect that the problem is ultimately beyond the capability of the human mind to solve. At this point, I’m mostly trying to emphasize that, while ESP seems to mimic normal sensory processes, it is of an entirely different order – and does not seem to require any sense organs or means of sensory information transfer.
Jeff
You might want to take a look at a recent post I made about synchronicity (in which I linked this post of yours) in which I begin to talk about some ways I’ve been using the synchronicity model to try to explain certain effects I’d observed around people who were meditating…
http://telesterion.zaadz.com/blog/2006/3/synchronicity_and_a_unified_theory_of_conciousness
Historicaly i’ve been more interested in action synchronicities than information synchronicities, they seem more explicitly observable to me. With information synchronicities one always has to wonder if there isn’t some other way the information could get into the mind.
Actually, for the past 5 to 7 years my dominant model for a lot of the effects we see has been what I call “Simulation”. The idea is that a sufficiently good simulation of, for example, clairvoyance, is _indistinguishable_ from reality.
I’d have to explain quite a bit more about what I mean by this, but, it’s been a very powerful model for me. The basic idea is that the brain/mind complex has vastly more processing power than we currently recognize, so much so that we can ‘simulate’, for example, the thoughts of other people, or possible future events, so accurately that the result is indistinguioshable from tlepathy or precognition.
This might seem like it takes the ‘magic’ out of such experiences, but I’ve come to look at it as actually making those experiences even more wonderful and awe inspiring.
Combine “simulation” with some kind of access to synchronicity information and you have a very interesting model, which begins to explain what I call the ‘wierdness’, the odd unreliability of non-ordinary perceptions.
I too am interested in simulation and similacra.
I also find a MEANINGFUL mirroring of psychic processes in the environment more persuasive than the coicidences of self-styled “signs” largely based in the simultaneous juxtaposition of information. For example, often I find myself reading an odd or rare word which is highlighted by simultaneous utterance on TV - but I don't find it particularly meaningful. When one has the intention of activating or deploying this phenomena, as in RV or even in various forms of ritual and magick, interpretation of possible juxtapositions becomes even more complex.
All that aside, your sketch (Jeff) compared to the target is quite impressive. I saw on History a likewise impressive demonstration at will by McMoneagle where he drove to the location of the sender under a bridge. It's tough to argue with that. Still, to be 'scientific', we are obligated to 'police' ourselves and continuously examine our impressions for our own biases, when our pet theories seem to “work” and not. In this regard “hit ratios” seem as important as those dramatic synchronicities when cosmosis seems to align with and support us.
Iona
Iona