Conference hydra::dejavu

    This sounds to me like something of a mildly extrasensory nature,
    although it might be something like a subconscious photographic
    memory.
    
    Topher??
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

RE: .1

We know very little about what the subconscious is capable of given the
right circumstances. 

The subconscious seems to have amazing abilities compared to the conscious
mind.  This includes both paranormal and non-paranormal abilities. 

The subconscious seems to be able to remember and integrate facts in a way
that seems superhuman compared to our conscious abilities.  Perfect recall,
photographic memory (technically known as eidetic memory -- not quite the
same as perfect recall) and lightning calculation are all subconscious
phenomena which probably ultimately will be explained in non-paranormal
ways. 

When something like Larry's ability to find file-folders comes up there is
an ambiguity.  What we can say is that Larry's subconscious *could* do this
without using paranormal abilities, since the subconscious does seem to be
capable of remembering vast quantities that have consciously been
forgotten, or even not noticed in the first place. 

Under these conditions it is impossible to know whether he was
unconsciously remembering and/or deducing the placement of the folders, or
was subconsciously finding the location via ESP.  The only way to tell
would be see how he would do if we excluded *any* non-paranormal way of
knowing where the folder was.  Since he has lost the ability, we can't
conduct this experiment. 

There is one guideline which does seem to be useful, however.  Under
conditions where apparent psychic abilities have been able to be
distinguished from non-paranormal abilities, psychic abilities are only
spontaneously reliable.  This means if someone can do something "almost"
every time they try, then it is likely that it is actually mostly a
non-paranormal ability. 

Good, legitimate psychics, for example, seem to perform their feats by
unconsciously putting together information from a wide range of sources
(including but not exclusively paranormal ones) in order to make good
"guesses".  When non-paranormal sources of information are denied to
them, they still do better than can be explained by chance, but nowhere
near as well as when they can "factor in" the other information.
Frequently they are consciously unaware of the source of much of their
information. 

This has to be taken with a *big* grain of salt.  We have actually studied
such a small corner of the psychic world that generalization may be
premature.  This does, however, seem to be a good rule of thumb. 

In conclusion: my guess is that this ability was non-paranormal though
there is no way to be sure.  Whether or not the ability is "psychic", it is
certainly "natural and wonerful" and well worth exploring. 

			Topher

RE: .0

I agree completely that psychic phenomena is completely natural. 

I'm not at all sure about the "modern man has gradually lost this ability"
part. 

When technologically primitive people are tested for psychic ability they
do not do outstandingly better or worse than technologically sophisticated
people.  That may be the fault of our testing methods, of course, but I
think it more likely that people the world over have roughly the same
abilities. 

There are two explanations I can think of for Larry's loss of his ability. 

One explanation is that he lost the subconscious ability (whether its
paranormal or non-paranormal) by simply bringing it to consciousness.
Anyone who has been involved with a sport depending on coordination, such
as gymnastics or the martial arts, know that if you *think* about what your
doing, you won't be able to do it.  It has to be automatic. The conscious
attempt to control it will interfere with the much more effective
subconscious control.

The other explanation is "fear of psi-ing."  Evidence is accumulating that
one of the major things which interferes with psychic ability is
unconscious fear of "having it".  This applies at least as much to people
who believe in psychic ability as people who don't.  It seems to be
universal.  Learning various effective ways to deal with these fears seems
to be an important part of learning to use psychic abilities. 

The funny thing about fear of psi, is that it is likely to shut off *any*
subconscious skill if the person fears that it is part of an "uncontrolled"
form of psi, whether it actually is or not. 

Every culture seems to make a distinction between the "paranormal" and the
"non-paranormal" (to use the modern terminology).  There is even general
agreement about which is which.  Where there is variation is in how
"normal" or "common" or "important to daily life" the paranormal is
considered. 

Technologically primitive people seem to have the same fears about psi as
we do.  That there world is filled with it probably makes the problem
worse, not better.  The paranormal is "spooky" whoever you ask. 

			Topher

    I wonder if we sometimes get tangled in definition wars?  It occurs
    to me after reading the exchanges in this note that not all "psychic"
    phenomena/abilities are "paranormal", and not all "paranormal"
    phenomena are "psychic".  From those of you who have studied the
    semantics of these terms most closely, what's the feeling?
    
    BTW, I tend to feel that almost all psychic abilities are natural,
    and not really abnormal at all.  But it is confusing to sort out,
    as Topher has pointed out.  And there are still many researchers who
    don't believe in any tremendous natural powers that seem to exist 
    in the human subconscious, let alone any un-natural ones.  It is
    only relatively recently that the scientific community has recognized
    that it is indeed possible, through certain meditative practices 
    (aka now known as biofeedback training), to regulate physiological
    processes that were considered to be totally automatic, i.e., heart
    rate, blood pressure, vaso-dilation, brain wave function.
    
    Marcia

    Re .5:
    
    A philosopher once said ,"There are no supernatural phenomena. 
    All conform to natural laws, but we haven't learned those laws yet."
    Having said that,
    Topher's observation is correct: "Having it" scares some prople,
    apparently.  Suppose the majority of people were colorblind and
    you weren't.  You could discern things easily that they couldn't,
    and to them, the ability would be uncanny --- supernatural.  If
    nobody else could see certain colors and you could, you'd probably
    start to become ubneasy about mentioning things others couldn't
    perceive, in fear of being labeled "strange."
    
    On "normality" versus "abnormality":  This is a semantically loaded
    pair.  "Abnormal" can be taken either to mean "exceptional" or
    "defective."  Most people equate it with the latter.  It's "abnormal"
    to be a champion athlete; is that _wrong_ (ask Larry Bird!)?  It's
    "abnormal" to be a genius.  "Abnormal" isn't _necessarily_ bad (or
    good, either), but "abnormality" scares folki.
    
    A lot of things get in the way of progress.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.: The reverse is the snob who thinks "abnormality" is a virtue
    ("I'm better than he or she is because ....").  Nuts!  It's a
    condition, neither a means of superiority or inferiority of itself.
    
    -S
    

    I always had the impression that the "psychic" was a sub-set of
    the "paranormal."  "Paranormal" is equated with "supernatural" in
    my desk dictionary, but that doesn't strike me as conforming to
    actual usage either.  It seems to mean "very odd, currently but
    not necessarily permanently inexplicable."
    
    Psychic phenomena are paranormal, but so are ghosts (not always
    labeled "psychic"), UFOs, yeti, sea-monsters, mysterious
    disappearances, and other fringy stuff.  Or so the word seems to
    be used.
    
    "Psychic" originally meant "of the soul," "not physical," though
    many people who pipedream explanations for the phenomena hope for
    an as-yet-undiscovered physical basis for them.
    
    Does this accord with other folks' experience of the use of the
    two terms?
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Regrettably, _all_ these terms are misused: occult; paranormal;
    supernatural; and Psychic.  Go to a bookstore and you'll usually
    see _one_ of these titles for a book section.
    
    Others group things together: Tarot might be found with "cards"
    or (stage) magic. 
    
    Is there any reason why a von Daniken should rub elbows with a yeti
    hunter, and that both should rub shoulders with a Spiritualist?
    Definitions, alas, are what we make them.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

RE: .4

The "ability" I was speaking of you having lost, was the narrow one
described in .0; the ability to "casually" find file folders.

I am glad to hear that you still have a broader (less casual but more
spontaneous?) ability.

And I agree overwhelmingly that we all have abilities, paranormal and
non-paranormal, which we all have which we could develop to improve
our lives.

		Topher

RE: .5

There is no simple answer to the meaning of the word "psychic".

Words like "ESP" and "psi" are technical terms.  They were invented
specifically for communicating technical ideas and have, therefore, fairly
precise, agreed upon meanings.  If someone uses one of these terms in a way
which is not consistent with their definitions, I can say, with some
justice, that they are wrong. 

The adjective "psychic", however, is not a technical term.  It is ordinary
English.  Usage determines its meaning, however many dictionaries are
written attempting to say what it "ought to" mean. It does have a meaning
within technical discussion, but people are not *wrong* to use one of its
non-technical meanings.  Indeed, it has different technical meanings
depending on the field.  It means something different in psychology than in
parapsychology. 

Originally, psychic was a synonym for psychological.  The word is still
used in this sense, sometimes. 

In the middle of the 19th century early psychical researchers, such as
James and Meyers, discovered (invented?) the subconscious.  The
subconscious (as its now called, there were a number of different terms
then; you still sometimes hear the "unconscious") was thought to have a
number of mysterious properties.  Some of these (e.g., "thought
transference") were what we would now call paranormal, while others (e.g.,
automatism) are extraordinary but non-paranormal. 

Later the term became associated more narrowly with "paranormal" phenomena. 

You are not *wrong* to use the term in any of these ways, or in various
intermediate ways. 

However, you may fail to communicate what you mean. 

I always try to use the adjective in the narrowest possible sense: referring
to paranormal psychological phenomena/abilities.  This seems least likely
to cause confusion. 

Using this narrow definition, clearly, all psychic phenomena are
paranormal, because I have defined the term that way. 

There are non-paranormal abilities (conscious and subconscious) which are
helpful or even necessary for the use of psychic abilities. Some of these
abilities, of and by themselves, may appear psychic except that they
require a relative subtle physical connection (for ESP-like abilities, for
example, subtle sources of information). 

You can use the term "psychic" for these latter abilities, if you wish; but
you are likely to fail to communicate what you are trying to say if you do. 

As to whether all paranormal phenomena is psychic: I know of no phenomena
which I consider both probably paranormal and probably non-psychic (i.e.,
not psychological in origin), but that doesn't mean that they don't exist
(or that my "probablies" are correct). 

			Topher

RE: .6

    >"Having it" scares some people, apparently.

What I meant is a bit broader than that, Steve. 

What has been proposed, and has *some* evidential support, is that
virtually everyone has a fear of psi.  Where the variation exists is in how
people cope with that fear. 

Here are some of the more important coping strategies (these are not
completely distinct, people seem to use more than one at a time): 

    DENIAL -- "It doesn't exist, so I don't have to deal with it."  I don't
    think that anyone who reads this conference needs this attitude
    elaborated to them. 

    TRIVIALIZATION -- This is actually a form of denial.  In this case the
    person accepts psi *intellectually* but denies its *emotional*
    importance. I know a well-known parapsychologist who can talk frankly
    and intelligently about theory and experiment, but who doesn't seem to
    be able to talk about psi phenomena in the "real" world without making
    jokes and/or changing the subject.

    AVOIDANCE -- This is another special form of denial, but its the
    opposite of trivialization.  The user of this strategy accepts psi
    phenomena but refuses to "think" about it.  This way they can avoid
    thinking about the consequences (threats, responsibilities, etc.).
    The result, in its full- blown form, is a naive acceptance of almost
    *anything*.  Since they won't think about it they cannot deal with
    contradictions, fraud, errors, etc. 

    INTELLECTIALIZATION -- (This one is my chief strategy).  The person
    using this strategy deals with the subject intellectually and
    abstractly, thereby safely "sterilizing" or "insulating" it.  This
    differs from trivialization in that it lacks the denial element.  My
    parapsychologist acquaintance uses intellectialization for laboratory
    and theoretical issues.  He seems unable to support that strategy
    *outside* the laboratory, however, and so falls back on trivialization. 

    RATIONALIZATION -- The person using this strategy accepts the existence
    of apparent psi phenomena, but not their nature as psi phenomena.  I
    know someone, for example, who can see auras.  They will tell you quite
    firmly, however, that the aura is *clearly* either infrared or
    ultraviolet, and that she *clearly* can simply see a little bit further
    into one of those two "bands" than most people.  If she is presented
    with reasons why this would not explain what she perceives, then she
    gets uncomfortable and ignores the contradiction.  The nature of the
    phenomena is still "clear" to her. 

    SUPPORTIVE BELIEF SYSTEMS -- The person using this strategy accepts the
    existence of psi phenomena but adopts a series of beliefs about the
    phenomena.  The properties believed in act to make psi "safe".  Of
    course, the belief may or may not be generally true.  The person may
    have accepted a belief because it is useful *and* true or because it is
    simply useful to believe it.  In any case the beliefs *are* absolutely
    true for the person who holds them. 

    Some typical examples of such beliefs: "Psi cannot be used to hurt
    people", "My power comes from God", "My power comes from flying
    saucers", "One cannot foresee ones own future", "One cannot use psychic
    powers to earn money". 

I should say, that it doesn't really matter whether what is being reacted
to is *really* paranormal or not.  This has to do with emotional reactions
to what *seems* to be paranormal. 

What strategy is the "best" or "healthiest"?  I would say that none of them
are.  Each, even denial, has their place.  Health is avoiding excess in
any of the strategies.  I don't think I know *anyone* who doesn't use all
of the strategies to one extent or another, and I think that this is
healthy. 

The development of supportive belief systems, however, seems to be the
single most useful strategy for developing psychic powers.  The most
flexible psychics generally seem to use intellectialization as their
chief secondary strategy. 

I was about to degenerate into giving advice, so I think I'll kill this
note here.  I'll write up the advice soon and post it to the appropriate
topic (I've been meaning to for awhile anyway). 

		    Topher

Steve has been having trouble posting again, so he sent me a mail message
replying to .12.  I'll summarize (with Steve's permission) and reply.

He points out that there is another strategy which he calls HATE.

>This is where you admit that psi phenomena do occur, but place them in a
>malefic perspective.  An ability could be "a gift of the Devil," for
>instance.

I agree completely that this is an all too common coping strategy which I
failed to mention.  Unlike the other strategies I see *no* positive benefit
to this one in any context. 

Actually, this is part of a broader strategy, which might be termed
REJECTION.  Essentially, the person using this strategy says "Psi exits but
it is not available to *me*."  This broader strategy might have a some
limited place in personal adjustment. 

This is however, a weak strategy since it provides no defense against the
existence of psi of others.  It therefore requires other strategy to deal
with that.  Generally that will be a supportive system of beliefs.  For
example if psi powers are a gift of the Devil, than a supportive system of
beliefs might include: "If I remain virtuous and carry a cross, than God
will protect me." 

Steve also suggests some reasons for the fear of psi: 

>I think part of it is fear of the unknown, and part of it is fear of losing
>control. 

Both of these are important factors.  Another important factor is
"reciprocity": if you can do it, there are probably others who can do it
better. 

Probably the most interesting factor is a fear of responsibility.  A
prominent feature of most (all?) systems of supportive beliefs is what has
been called "displacement of responsibility".  Someone (or something) other
than the person themselves are assigned responsibility (perhaps correctly,
of course) for the phenomena.  The designated responsible entity could be
God, flying saucers, a group of which the person is a member, a "guru", a
"spirit guide", or even a depersonalized subconscious. 

			Topher

	    I was at the height of my particular "paranormal" talent
	(d�j�-vu to the point of overwhelming recursion) when I was
	unemployed and didn't have much to eat.  I was constantly
	hungry and very thin.  Perhaps there is something to this
	spirituality of fasting business.
	    The diets of most Americans is too rich in protein and
	fat, and the body has to work very hard on digestion.  It
	may be that when we were younger, our bodies were able to
	use more of the excess for physical growth, and our bodies
	didn't work quite so hard.
	    The energy expended in digesting is known to make us
	less active and less psychologically energetic.  Perhaps it
	also makes us less "paranormally" energetic.
			Just Thinking Out Loud
			<_Jym_>

    RE: .16  (Jym)
    
    If you've ever notice, it is very difficult to get into a meditative,
    or any kind of psychic state on a full stomach.  I've heard several
    reasons for this.  One of them is that spending so much of your
    energy digesting food, with the feeling of fullness keeps you more
    tied to your body than you are when you are hungry.
    
    I'm not sure that fasting is necessary, but doing psychic exercises
    is more likely to yield results if done before dinner than if done
    afterwards.
    
    Of course, the fact that you point to that your best time of having
    paranormal ability was during a period of unemployment could be
    that not having a job was allowing your mind to be used for other
    things.
    
    Kathleen
    

	> . . . could be that not having a job was allowing your mind
	> to be used for other things.

	    Well, not in my case.  I was spending my time walking the
	streets looking for work and going dumpster diving.
	    I once had a job where all I did was sleep.  I was a se-
	curity guard assigned to night duty watching a tower that a
	company thought its striking employees would vandalize.  I
	was not allowed to stop them from vandalizing it; my only
	purpose was to report if it had been knocked down . . . so we
	got on the CB and talked to the strikers and they agreed that
	they would wake us up if they knocked it down so that we could
	report it.  The upshot is that I could sleep at night and spend
	my days sitting by the pool.  It didn't seem to free my mind
	for bigger and better things.  (BTW, I was eating the usual
	excessive-fat-and-protein diet at the time.)
	    I had another cushy job that deserves mention.  I was a
	merit badge counselor at a Boy Scout camp.  Our council had
	just opened a brand new camp somewhere else, and everyone went
	there; leaving me with almost nobody left to counsel.  I had
	a lot of free time left, and I spent most of it just walking
	through the woods (nature-freaking and such).  I also ran five
	miles and swam one mile every morning, and swam three miles
	every afternoon.  The swims turned out to be very conducive to
	meditation, much like sensory-deprivation tanks.  I ended up
	experiencing things that I later recognized when I studied
	Taoism and Zen.
			<_Jym_>

    Two interesting items regarding what we eat and "sensitivity".
    
    Over the span of about 5 years I had the same information given
    to me from different sources.  During a reading with a psychic,
    I was told that I shouldn't eat dairy products and that my body
    did not process oils well.  Then I had two dreams well after that
    reading and the dreams were very far apart timewise.  In the first
    dream all I remembered was a very angry cow yelling at me.  In the
    second dream, I was in a large dining hall filled with people and
    on all the tables were large bowls filled with what looked like
    whipped cream (or something like that).  In front of me was a plate
    with a chicken leg and green salad.  Next I had a reading with a
    medium and my spirit teacher came through to tell me that I needed
    to watch my diet because the intake of animal fats was giving her
    a problem getting our energies to blend well enough so that we 
    could work together better (I was sitting in a development circle
    at the time).  She told me I would do much better eating cereals
    and grains.
    
    I've adjusted my diet quite a bit, but haven't been able to totally
    cut out the dairy.
    
    Carole
    

    
    
    Sorry.  #2 slipped my mind for a minute there!!
    
    When I was sitting in development circle (for evidential mediumship)
    it was recommended that we not eat anything before meeting, and
    if we did, to make it very light.  Not always taking things solely
    on what I'm told, I had a little more than a light dinner one
    evening, and boy, was my stomach upset all night!!!!
    
    Carole