Secrets of Power |
VOLUME I ♦ INDIVIDUAL EMPOWERMENT vs THE SOCIETAL PANORAMA OF POWER AND DEPOWERMENT
Volume I ♦ Introduction
Most books about power only deal with the societal formula of the few having power over the enormously larger powerless masses, and which is mistaken as the so-called “natural order of power.” But it is not well understood that this formula also requires social conditioning measures aimed at perpetuating the continuing depowerment of the powerless so that the powerful CAN have power over them. This in turn requires the societal suppression and secretizing of all knowledge about the superlative human powers known to exist in individuals of the human species, but which are socially forced into latency in most. It is broadly understood that power and secrecy go together, but the scope of the “web” of secrets surrounding the larger nature of human power(s) is surprising. As discussed in this Volume I of SECRETS OF POWER, empowerment is difficult if the larger panorama of societal power and depowerment are not more full understood. Any desire for more individual empowerment will soon encounter the question of WHAT to empower. There are many ways to consider this. One way is first to identify human power elements that are known to exist, but DO NOT receive societal nurturing, enhancement, training, scientific research, or philosophical interest. In-depth research will reveal at least five major categories of these power elements, one such category consisting of the aware powers innate in everyone of our species. The direct relationship between the spectrum of aware powers and increases of power is self-evident. The direct relationship between less or no awareness and less or no power is also self-evident. Most societal power structures do not encourage too much development of any aware and related powers, and, via societal programming of punishment, some structures force them into latency altogether. One basic reason is that too much awareness erodes the efficiency of walls of secrecy that support the elite of most power structures, whether large or small. Most are familiar with the awareness they have. But few are familiar with the awarenesses they don't have, but which anyway innately exist within their otherwise amazing information systems. Author's Note
THE MORE things change, the more they remain the same' is an old adage that applies to many human activities. But it certainly applies to the activities of human societal power. Its outer circumstances and formats change over time, but its inner workings remain remarkably the same. One of the inner factors that remains the same consists of the ever on-going distinctions between the powerful and the powerless that prevail through time and circumstances.
Two other factors also remain the same: (1) the general lack of interest in the nature of the powerless, i.e., why the powerless ARE powerless; and (2) the enormous fascination with the powerful, and with possibilities of becoming powerful.
There is another significant factor that needs to be taken into account, although it might at first seem quite distant from the problems of power.
Brain researchers often say that we use only ten to fifteen percent of our brains. It's also quite possible to think that we use only ten to fifteen percent of discovered knowledge.
Most information sources regarding power seem to end up giving two basic impressions about it:
It would be a great mental and emotional relief if the two impressions did reflect the basic nature of power. But they do not – and cannot if the word "human" is prefixed to the term "power.'' The two impressions are possible only if power is seen as one-dimensional – i.e., seen either from the bottom up, so to speak, and/or from the top down.
Whether discussed as being multi-dimensional or as having multiple faces, the inescapable meaning is that power, in its intrinsic nature, is complex.
Societal power is considered a very precious commodity, perhaps the most precious. Access to it is therefore a matter of ultra-intense competition. In turn, easy access to the competition itself must be guarded in order to limit the numbers of possible competitors. There is only one really efficient way to guard against access to power, and that is to conceal, prohibit, and secretize all real knowledge about it.
The long-term result is that most do not comprehend very much about power. But most do appreciate two well-known facts about it:
There is a basic fact that those aspiring to empowerment must face, sooner or later: societal power is almost always more powerful than the individual, even more powerful than groups of them.
In view of this unavoidable mandate, this first volume of SECRETS OF POWER is confined to twenty-eight chapters.
Volume I ♦ Table of Contents
Obituary
[LINK]
Ingo Swann (1933-2013)
Few of us get to be the originators of anything unique, much less something so revolutionary that it just might change the entire world. Yet that is the case with Ingo Douglas Swann, who passed away from the effects of a stroke on the 31st of January, 2013 at the age of 79. Ingo was born in Telluride, Colorado on September 14, 1933, and was both sensitive and intuitive almost from his first awareness. He experienced an out-of-body state at 2 years of age in which, though fully anesthetized during a tonsillectomy, he was able to observe and later report accurate details of the procedure. That event initiated an ongoing series of out-of-body and clairvoyant experiences that he quickly learned not to share with any but his maternal grandmother, who herself had a sensitivity for such things. Ingo took his education at Westminster College in Salt Lake City, Utah, earning a double degree in art and biology. He served a three-year enlistment in the US Army, much of it in Korea in an administrative position with the 8th Army. During this time he became bridge partner and friends with Madame Syngman Rhee, the Austrian-born wife of South Korea's first president, and played an important behind-the-scenes role in preventing a major international incident, for which he received a letter of commendation. Out of the Army and transplanted to New York City in the early 1960s to begin his art career, Ingo supported himself for 12 years as an employee in the Secretariat of the United Nations in various roles. While nurturing his fledgling art career, he made the acquaintance of many of the literati and intellectuals in New York social circles of the day, including people such as artist Andy Warhol, whose parties Ingo attended just a few blocks from his own residence in the Bowery. Some of these connections led him to the world of experimental parapsychology which was enjoying a heyday in the Manhattan of the mid-to-late 1960s and early 1970s. Gertrude Schmeidler of the City College of New York, with whom Ingo worked on psychokinesis research, and Karlis Osis, of the American Society for Psychical Research, with whom he became involved in out-of-body perceptual work were two of the more prominently active parapsychologists at the time. In 1971 Ingo proposed a new parapsychology research protocol that involved participants in trying to "observe" locations or settings separated from them by either distance or shielding under fully-blind conditions. He named this protocol "remote viewing," and it served as the kernel around which all of the discipline of remote viewing and its various aspects ultimately formed. Cleve Backster, a leading pioneer in polygraph and "lie-detector" development was also engaged in the forward edge of consciousness research, and Ingo became affiliated with this researcher as well. The connection with Backster soon led to a defining moment in Ingo's career. After coming across a communication sent to Backster by Dr. Harold E. "Hal" Puthoff proposing an experiment based on Backster's "Primary Perception" theories, Ingo volunteered himself to participate in the research. Puthoff invited Ingo to the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in Menlo Park, California. On June 6, 1972 the two of them performed a watershed experiment in the basement of the Varian Physics Building on the Stanford University campus. With no previous access to a large-scale magnetometer being used for fundamental physics research, Ingo was able to both mentally influence the output of the heavily-shielded device and to correctly clairvoyantly sketch the relationships of elements in the internal mechanism. Word of this success eventually reached the Central Intelligence Agency's Office of Technical Services, and Puthoff was shortly visited by representatives of the CIA, who further tested Ingo's abilities and offered a preliminary $50,000 contract to explore both the psychokinesis (PK) and the new-found remote viewing phenomena. This was the beginning of a 23-year involvement of the US Government in remote viewing research and applications. In 1976 Ingo directly involved his good offices in recruiting nuclear physicist Ed May who would one day come to head the SRI effort. Though other remote viewers were recruited and, where necessary, taught or trained, Ingo remained a central figure in the program, suggesting new research directions and participating in thousands of remote viewing trials, both research-oriented and for practical applications. Starting in the late 1970s and continuing through the first half of the following decade, Hal Puthoff and Ingo focused on isolating and identifying the underlying principles and, eventually, developing a system to convey to naive subjects the techniques and competencies of successful, well-experienced remote viewers. This research ultimately culminated in what is known today as "controlled remote viewing" (CRV - originally called "coordinate remote viewing"). The process progresses through six "stages," beginning from general mental contact with the target and subsequently guiding the viewer's consciousness up through increasingly detailed target access. CRV proved successful in developing remote viewing capabilities in naive subjects, and in 1982 was first offered to the Army to further develop the military remote viewing program already underway. Due to changes in Army politics, the SRI training contract was completed at the end of 1984, and never renewed. The military program officially moved on from the Army to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the end of January, 1986. The CRV methodology was used extensively and successfully during the following years of the program. Ingo continued to be associated and participate with SRI until 1989, when he declared his retirement from parapsychology research. There followed two decades of fruitful writing and painting, where Ingo authored several popular books, articles, and content for his own comprehensive website, biomindsuperpowers.com. Ingo was a popular, sought-after speaker who, nonetheless limited his speaking engagements. The International Remote Viewing Association was fortunate to have him speak at three of its conferences, plus an additional one it co-sponsored with the Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach, Virginia. After his retirement, Ingo occasionally dipped his toe back briefly into active parapsychology research. He worked chiefly with Dr. Michael Persinger at Laurentian University in a set of fruitful experiments attempting to identify correlations between remote viewing functioning and brain activation. Appropriately, at the time of his passing Ingo was well along in organizing and producing a book of his marvelous artwork, a final legacy to bestow on the world. We have hopes that this book will eventually be made available for us all to appreciate and enjoy. Now, just a few days after his passing, Ingo Swann is already sorely missed. Our planet is, indeed, emptier without him in it. But what he left behind will contribute to the developing of higher levels of human consciousness for many years to come - indeed, likely forever. Paul H. Smith THE RESEARCH WORK OF INGO SWANN – A 32-YEAR OVERVIEW
[LINK]
Since 1970, Ingo Swann has worked with over 38 cutting-edge researchers in the fields of parapsychology and cognitive perception, with an additional 14 projects governed by nondisclosure agreements. His early 1970-1972 work with parapsychology researchers based in New York produced results that attracted international attention and acclaim. By 1973, with thousands of experimental trials counted up, he was broadly noted as parapsychology’s most tested “guinea-pig.” However, he is best known for his long-term association with Dr. H. E. Puthoff at Stanford Research Institute (SRI). This work (between 1972 and 1988 in the field of remote viewing) achieved high luminosity because of sponsorship by U.S. intelligence and military Through these years, hundreds of thousands of experimental trials contributed to increases of knowledge that had not been attained elsewhere. After his retirement in 1989 from such big-time research, Swann continued intermittent work with advanced researchers in the fields of multidimensional mental imagery, perception, and refined brainwave studies. Swann’s 32-years of work is unified by four principal factors
All of these factors were incorporated into the fifteen year research project at Stanford Research Institute, and helped produce development of various important but hitherto unknown aspects of remote viewing. The project also researched and leaned heavily on hundreds of published papers and information drawn from scientific sources outside the boundaries of parapsychology focus. In a socio-cultural sense, Swann’s overall 30-odd years of work roughly covers two periods of mainstream intolerance-tolerance ratios. Always and only working with accredited scientists, his work between 1970-1985 took place within a long established milleu of extreme scientific and mainstream intolerance to human faculties of expanded and refined perception. Since 1985, this intolerance has ameliorated considerably, largely due to advancing discoveries about the impressive extent of biological receptors of the human body-mind, many of which account for extraordinary human sensing faculties. Continuing discovery confirming the remarkable nature of the human genome has also clearly established that the genetic basis for those faculties is present in most individuals, although remaining socially non-nurtured and undeveloped. As of 2000, however, extreme intolerance against scientific development of telepathy remains abundantly active. In summing up his three decades of work and research, Swann holds that human sensing-perceptive systems are, in their total and probable scope, extraordinary and remarkable, and that they are composed not only of known factors, but also of potentials not yet identified and studied. But human sensing-perceptive systems are complex, especially when expanded and developed into higher-stage functioning. In the face of these glorious systems, simplistic, insular, and dogmatic approaches are seldom Useful either with regard to understanding them or specially with regard to developing them. Therefore, increasing amounts of inter-disciplinary information need to be drawn from any source possible and organized into the larger picture of all that is involved. A partial archive of many factors involved can be found in his website http://www.biolmindsuperpowers.com A PARTIAL LISTING OF RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTS IN WHICH INGO SWANN HAS PARTICIPATED:
Many of the research papers and documents that involved Ingo can be downloaded and viewed [HERE]. The closest to the actual training methods Ingo created & handed over to the U.S. military can be downloaded here: 1985 CRV in house training manual & notes – Author; Tom McNear.
Suggested Reading
NOTE: Each of the following sources reveals some explicit or implicit element that can be recognized as being integral to societal power structures, especially those that are pyramidal in format. Most of the sources contain good bibliographies which help extend larger panoramic overviews of societal powerdom. Sources referring to human powers at the species and individual levels will be provided in volumes II and III. Adler, Mortimer J., INTELLECT-MIND OVER MATTER. (Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 1990). Anderson, Jack, PEACE, WAR, AND POLITICS: AN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT. (Forge, New York, 1999). Bennett, James T. & Thomas J. DiLorenzo, OFFICIAL LIES: HOW WASHINGTON MISLEADS US. (Groom Books, Alexandria, Virginia, 1992). Bennis, Warren, ON BECOMING A LEADER. (Addison-Wesley Publishing, New York, 1989). Boorstin, Daniel J. HIDDEN HISTORY: EXPLORING OUR SECRET PAST. (Harper & Row, New York, 1987). Butler, E. A., THE BIG BUCK AND THE NEW BUSINESS BREED. (Macmillan, New York, 1972). Carrere D'Encausse, Helene, THE RUSSIAN SYNDROME: ONE THOUSAND YEARS OF POLITICAL MURDER. (Holmes & Meier, New York, 1992). Cetron, Marvin & Owen Davies, CRYSTAL GLOBE: THE HAVES AND THE HAVE-NOTS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER. (St. Martin's, New York, 1991). Cousins, Norman, THE PATHOLOGY OF POWER. (W. W. Norton, New York, 1987). Dulles, Allen, THE CRAFT OF INTELLIGENCE. (Harper & Row, New York, 1963). Ewen, Stuart, PRI A SOCIAL HISTORY OF SPIN. (Basic Books, New York, 1996). FitzGibbon, Constantine, SECRET INTELLIGENCE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY. (Stein & Day, New York, 1977). Friedman, Thomas L., THE LEXUS AND THE OLIVE TREE: UNDERSTANDING GLOBALIZATION. (Farrar, Straus, Giroux, New York, 1999). Galbraith, John Kenneth, THE ANATOMY OF POWER. (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1983). Garan, D. G., OUR SCIENCES RULED BY HUMAN PREJUDICE: HUMANLY NECESSARY CAUSAL BLINDNESS PERSISTING EVEN IN SCIENCES. (Philosophical Library, New York, 1987). Green, Robert & Joost Elffers, THE 48 LAWS OF POWER. (Viking, New York, 1998). Herodotus, HISTORIES. (Wordsworth Editions, London, 1996). Hilts, Philip J., BEHAVIOR MOD. (Harper's Magazine Press, New York, 1974). Horkheimer, Max & Samuel H. Flowerman (Eds.), THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY. (Science Editions, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1964). Horowitz, Irving Louis, THE DECOMPOSITION OF SOCIOLOGY. (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993). Keith, Jim (Ed.), SECRET ANBD SUPPRESSED: BANNED IDEAS & HIDDEN HISTORY. (Feral House, Portland, Oregon, 1993). Kohn, Alfie, NO CONTEST - THE CASE AGAINST COMPETITION. (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1986). Lawrence, James, RAJ: THE MAKING AND UNMAKING OF BRITISH INDIA. (St. Martin's, New York, 1997). Lebedoff, David, THE NEW ELITE - THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY. (Franklin Watts, New York, 1981). Lichter, Robert S., Stanley Rothman & Linda S. Lichter, THE MEDIA ELITE: AMERICA'S NEW POWERBROKERS. (Adler & Adler, Bethesda, Maryland, 1986). Maclay, George & Humphry Knipe, THE DOMINANT MAN: THE PECKING ORDER IN HUMAN SOCIETY. (Delacorte Press, New York, 1972). Mann, John, CHANGING HUMAN BEHAVIOR: THE FIRST COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNT OF MODERN ALTERATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR. (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1965). Mills, c. Wright, THE POWER ELITE. (Oxford University Press, New York, 1956). -- POWER, POLITICS AND PEOPLE. (Ballantine Books, New York, 1963). Mitroff, Ian I. & Warren Bennis, THE UNREALITY INDUSTRY: THE DELIBERATE MANUFACTURING OF FALSEHOOD AND WHAT IT IS DOING TO OUR LIVES. (Carol Publishing Group, New York, 1989). Nisbet, Robert, THE MAKING OF MODERN SOCIETY. (New York University Press, New York, 1986). Penrose, Roger, SHADOWS OF THE MIND: A SEARCH FOR THE MISSING SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. (Oxford University Press, New York, 1994). Peters, Charles & John Rothchild, INSIDE THE SYSTEM. (Praeger Publishers, New York, 1973). Poggi, Gianfranco, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODERN STATE: A SOCIOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION. (Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1978). Scheflin, Alan W. & Edward M. Opton, Jr., THE MIND MANIPULATORS. (Paddington Press, New York, 1978). Sennet, Richard: THE FALL OF PUBLIC MAN: ON THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CAPITALISM. (Vintage Books, Random House, New York, 1976). Shattuck, Roger, FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE: FROM PROMETHEUS TO PORNOGRAPHY. (St. Martin's, New York, 1996). Strong, Roy, ART AND POWER: RENAISSANCE FESTIVALS 1450 - 1650. (University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1984). Sun-tzu, THE ART OF WAR (Trans. by Ralph D. Sawyer). (Barnes & Noble, New York, 1994). Suvorov, Vikton, INSIDE THE SOVIET ARMY. (Panther Books, London, 1982). Weatherford, Jack, THE HISTORY OF MONEY: FROM SANDSTONE TO CYBERSPACE. (Crown, New York, 1997). West, Nigel, GAMES OF INTELLIGENCE: THE CLASSIFIED CONFLICT OF INTERNATIONAL ESPIONAGE REVEALED. (Crown Publishers, New York, 1989). Wieman, Henry Nelson, THE DIRECTIVE IN HISTORY. (Beacon Press, Boston, 1949). Winn, Denise, THE MANIPULATED MIND: BRAINWASHING, CONDITIONING AND INDOCTRINATION. (The Octagon Press, London, 1983). Wise, David & Thomas R. Ross, THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT. (Random House, New York, 1964). Zweig, Michael, THE WORKING CLASS: AMERICA'S BEST KEPT SECRET. (Cornell University Press, Ithica, New York, 2000). Copyright
For more information about the author, visit https://ingoswann.com/ TO PLACE ORDERS FOR THIS BOOK 1 888 453-4046 (Toll Free) SECRETS OF POWER Volume I: INDIVIDUAL EMPOWERMENT VS THE SOCIETAL PANORAMA OF POWER AND DEPOWERMENT Copyright 2000 by Ingo Swann. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording means or otherwise without prior written permission of the author. Published in the United States by Ingo Swann Books, P.O. Box 2875 Rapid City, South Dakota 57709-2875 Telephone numbers for placing orders for this book: (888) 453-4046 (USA, Canada) (Toll Free) (605) 341-5660 (Foreign) (605) 341-0020 (Fax) Printed in the United States of America ISBN 0-9667674-2-X Also by Ingo Swann
To Kiss Earth Good-bye Cosmic Art (Editor) Star Fire (Fiction) Natural ESP: A Layman's Guide to Unlocking the Extra Sensory Power of Your Mind Everybody's Guide to Natural ESP Your Nostradamus Factor: Accessing Your Innate Ability to See into the Future Purple Fables (Quartet) VOLUME I - PART I ♦ STRATEGIC BACKGROUND VISTAS REGARDING EMPOWERMENT
Chapter 1 ♦ The Complex Labyrinth of Powerdom
ONE OF the first things that can be observed and learned about power is that its workings are vast and enormously complex. The workings might therefore be compared to a labyrinth, constructed so as to be not only full of intricate passageways and blind alleys, but also containing secret doors as well as cleverly designed pitfalls and booby-traps.
SIMPLIFYING AND VERIFYING ELEMENTS OF THE COMPLEXITY The mix of the foregoing characteristics of powerdom makes it difficult to trust anything that is written about it.
It is very important to keep this verification potential in mind, because learning to observe and identify aspects of power is certainly a fundamental key regarding empowerment. The personal verification potential is also important because large population segments have been socially conditioned to think of power only in given ways.
SUBDIVIDING THE PANORAMA OF POWER As complex and as extensive it is, the elements and factors of the entire panorama of power can be broken down, or subdivided, into numerous and increasingly complex categories. In the first instance, however, power can be subdivided into three general categories as:
The components of the first two of these categories are easily visible, but the elements of the third are more difficult to identify.
A second way of categorizing elements and factors of power is to distinguish between the powerful and the powerless. This constitutes the conventional approach to the "anatomy" of power. That conventional approach, however, exclusively focuses only on the powerful and the anatomy of their power structures.
However, this volume especially focuses on empowerment, as contrasted to power. Thus, the issues involved must incorporate extensive discussion of the powerless – and whose existence is more dynamically meaningful than can usually be imagined. THE OVERRIDING IMPORTANCE OF SOCIETAL POWER I fully realize that many readers would principally be interested in self-empowerment at the individual level.
It is one thing for a relatively powerless individual to wish for more self-empowerment. But such wishing can be thwarted if the individual is uninformed about the societal mechanisms designed to make wide-spread individual empowerment as complicated and as fruitless as possible. There can be no doubt that efforts at self-empowerment must take place within societal contexts which contain ways and means to disarm empowerment, an activity that is a central objective of all power games. At the societal level, those ways and means have a long, but quite hidden history, and many of the methods involved have become not only institutionalized but secreted. HIDDEN AND SECRET ASPECTS OF POWER Whatever is deliberately "hidden" regarding power equates to some kind of secrecy.
To one degree or another, various versions of secrets of power have been deployed on behalf of all societal power structures everywhere, in all times, and in all cultures.
It is not therefore necessary to single out various power institutions past or present in order to accuse them of wheeling and dealing in behind-the-scenes power stratagems or tactics.
THERE IS TOO MUCH POWERLESSNESS The reader deserves to know why I have decided to compile these three volumes. That reason, simply put, is that there is too much powerlessness everywhere, not only within the realms of the "official" powerless, but even among the powerful who often find themselves caught up in circumstances, trends, and affairs beyond their control, authority, or influence. This is exceedingly strange for a species exceedingly rich in powers of all kinds. Too much powerlessness, especially if artificially engineered by societal measures, really does equate to a profound waste of human potentials, and even of human life itself. TWO NECESSARY TERMS As has often been pointed up by linguists and semanticists, topics can be discussed only by utilizing the nomenclature a language contains.
DEPOWERMENT The first of these is DEPOWERMENT, which is not found in dictionaries. Depower can be understood as the direct opposite of empower, a term that is found in dictionaries, and which basically means "to enable, to increase in power." DEPOWER thus means to disable or to reduce from power, to deprive it of capacity or strength, to make incapable or ineffective, or to cut it back or down to negligible importance.
GROK The second missing term is GROK, coined by Robert A. Heinlein in his famous science fiction novel, STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, first published in 1969. This terms refers to grasping, or synthesizing, the larger or overall meaning, nature, or essence of something via an apparent mixture of empathy, intuition, and, sometimes, telepathy.
Groking is in contrast to understanding, the latter of which is usually achieved via the slower and more laborious linear functions of the left hemisphere. Groking reveals the sum of the lined-up parts, which is not revealed by the parts themselves. While the processes of groking and understanding do contrast, they are not mutually exclusive, and can work in tandem. It can be pointed up, though, that one can learn to understand information by sequentially lining it up, but perhaps fail to make a groking synthesis of the sequence.
Chapter 2 ♦ Two Major Concepts of Power
THE COMPLEXITY of power and powerdom can be pictured in various ways: as a convoluted network; as a gigantic puzzle most of whose pieces are hard to find; or as an intricate labyrinth filled with fake doors, dead ends, and clever booby-traps. THE USUAL FORMAT OF POWER STRUCTURES This complexity makes it difficult to decide where to begin discussion and examination of what, in conventional terms, is sometimes referred to as the "anatomy" of power.
BEHIND THE CONVENTIONAL POWER STRUCTURE However, deeper and more extensive examinations reveal that the anatomy (which is ardently accepted in conventional terms) is actually akin to the proverbial iceberg, only one-fifth of which is visible while the other four-fifths are hidden underneath the water. Most people, even those tending toward intellectual idiocy, sense that the workings of power are composed not only of its visible factors, but also of factors hidden behind the scenes that are difficult to identify. One factor is quite certain, however. Although the conventional concepts regarding power do reveal a great deal about its ever-changing vicissitudes, those concepts are also entirely inadequate with regard to many fundamental issues.
In other words, the societal constructions set the margins between the powerful and the powerless, with the powerful thereafter maintaining those margins, and sometimes doing so with strength and enthusiasm that can be ruthless. THE VISIBLE ANATOMY OF POWER AS SOCIETAL ARTIFICE However, it can be seen that every societal construction is nothing more than some kind of sociological artifice - i.e., "an artful stratagem, or an ingenious device or expedient" designed to incorporate individuals into some kind of sociological power structure. And indeed, the well-known conventional definition of power as "control, authority, and influence over others" is closely linked to the definition of artifice – in that the control is almost always gained by "artful stratagems, or via ingenious devices or expedients."
SOCIETAL POWER ARTIFICE vs THE TOTALITY OF HUMAN POWERS The structured power artifices do not at all reflect the entirety of human powers per se, but only the particular format of how control, authority, and influence over others is set up and then maintained for as long as possible. This kind of thing sets up the distinction and well-known disparity between societal power systems and the relatively powerless individuals incorporated within them, the latter of which sometimes feel that their own powers are constrained and truncated by the devices and agendas of the power systems.
But viewed from the "top" of the power systems, it will logically be concluded that:
There is an exact reason for (1) and (2) above, which will be discussed in the next chapter. It is first necessary to examine the contexts of the two major concepts of power, because they are in direct conflict with each other. THE "ESSENTIAL" AND THE "AUTHORITARIAN" DEFINITIONS OF POWER A central difficulty regarding enlarging one's comprehension of power relates to the conventional idea that the definition of power is "control, authority, and influence over others." However, that definition is more aptly suited to the meaning of authoritarianism – which is defined as "relating to or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or in an elite; also, relating to or favoring submission to authority." This author must hasten to point up that this linking of societal power to authoritarianism enjoys rather great precedence. After all, the term "authority" IS found in the accepted definitions of societal power. And those several authors, who have elaborated upon the anatomy of power, unambiguously refer to those who are subservient to authority. Admittedly, there are various degrees and arrangements of authoritarianism, just as there are various degrees and arrangements of power elites. But if power is defined and accepted as control and influence over others, then the "others" are "subservient" in some sense at least.
In contrast to the authoritarian definitions of power are what can be called the "essential" definitions of it. In most dictionaries, these are given as "ability to act; to cause or produce an effect; mental efficacy; a source or means of producing motive and transformational energy."
If the distinctions between controlling and causative powers are meditated upon as calmly as possible, it can almost immediately be seen that the causative and the controlling definitions of power are in conflict. The most simple reason is because controlling powers would wish, or would find it necessary, to control causative powers at the random individual level. It is certainly true that invested societal power structures can cause things to happen.
As will be copiously discussed in the text, the essential, or causative definitions of power outlined just above are more or less the antithesis of authoritarian control, authority, and influence.
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS OF POWER Most modern dictionaries give first status to the authoritarian definitions of power, and second status to the essential definitions. However, the Oxford dictionary of the English language reveals that the essential definition of "to cause to act" was first utilized about 1305. The essential definition as "a particularly strong faculty of body or mind, of vigor, vitality, and energy". appeared about 1440. The two somewhat authoritarian concepts of power as "personal or social ascendancy," and "controlling political or economic ascendancy or influence" did not emerge until about 1535. In any event, in today's parlance there are two highly contrasting definitions of power. Both are mentioned, but the authoritarian one is given first, the essential ones given second.
THE POWER OF SOCIETAL ARTIFICES vs ESSENTIAL POWERS OF THE INDIVIDUAL Thus far, then, the complex topic of power breaks neatly into two parts – the power of societal artifices, and the powers of the individual. These two kinds of power are not altogether the same thing. A number of books on the subject of self-empowerment have appeared over time, and some contain very helpful information. But most of them are deficient with regard to one very important context: they give hardly any hint of what the individual is up against.
For the most part, one is born into those power environments as a mere statistical unit having very little right to freely and fully develop innate powers in ways that do not accord with those power environments. Indeed, and as will be seen ahead, such environmental power structures, as societal artifices, wield enormous control and influence with regard to attempts for achieving self-empowerment. THE BASIC PROBLEM OF SELF-EMPOWERMENT Therefore, with regard to self-empowerment, one will not be attempting self-empowerment per se, but will be attempting it WITHIN a societal artifice which has established ingenious devices and expediencies to truncate too much self-empowerment. If one is not at least somewhat cognizant of those societal devices and expediencies, one's self-empowerment efforts may end up being like a dismal, failure-prone war fought in unmapped territory where the societal devices have all the advantages. If the foregoing seems harsh, just take a good look at the enormous number of the powerless throughout the world. Yet, our species existed here long before the societal power artifices that are controlled by the relatively few powerful.
In any event, it is now necessary to move into the next chapter in order to examine the enormous disparity between the powerful and the powerless – and to point up at least one logical reason for the disparity.
Chapter 3 ♦ The Hidden Status Quo Relationship Between the Powerless and the Powerful
MOST BOOKS that map the conventional anatomy of power direct copious attention to the powerful, but hardly any attention at all to the powerless – except to refer to them as the controlled, the influenced, the obediently subservient, and so forth. Because of this, it is possible to find out a good deal about power via the power structures of the powerful.
In a general way, this is as much to say that the powerless exist because they ARE powerless, after which no further comment is necessary. The above observations describe a rather fixed concept that seems to be taken as natural by the powerful as well as the powerless. The arrangement between them is thought of simply as the way things always have been, are, and always will be. The whole of this can be diagrammed as the traditional power structure pyramid. The traditional power pyramid is usually shown in the neat format of an equilateral triangle, and it is this that gives the impression not only of balance throughout, but that the powerless are, in some way, an accepted benefiting part of the power pyramid. A more real assessment of the total populations involved cannot result in the neat equilateral format.
THE VAST PROPORTIONAL DISPARITY BETWEEN THE POWERLESS AND THE POWERFUL Roughly speaking, the relatively powerful comprise about 10 percent or less of the total population, while the relatively powerless make up the remaining 90 percent or more.
The less than 10 percent of the powerful can be further subdivided by considering the visible and the invisible power elite, the latter few of which are known to operate behind the scenes.
If the whole of our human species is considered, and if the vast proportional disparity is to be considered as real, then it seems that our species naturally produces the vast populations who are not meant to be powerful.
Thus, it can easily be considered that the 90 to 10 percent disproportional relationship is little more than a societal artifice that is given artificial reality by various ways and means. THE NEEDED STATUS QUO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE POWERFUL AND THE SUBSERVIENT POWERLESS A significant question that is never posed is that if the powerless did not exist, then who or what would the powerful have power over?
There is every historical indication that the powerful are cognizant of this necessary status quo relationship, and that overt and covert ways and means are designed to perpetuate it at the general societal levels.
Historians explain this as a necessary method to ensure possession and inheritance of property and wealth.
By far and large, it is this needed status quo relationship that, in part, makes examinations of power so complicated, or at least renders such examinations into a puzzle whose pieces are very hard to locate. Further, the perpetuation of the needed status quo relationship between the very few powerful and the very many powerless is itself a quite complicated affair, largely because it must be managed in macro and micro ways that prevent the collective powerless from becoming all that cognizant of it. And in this sense, the necessary existence of the direct relationship between the societal powerful and the societal powerless probably qualifies as the first secret of power.
POWER IS NOT JUST POWER In the light of the foregoing, it can be said that power is not just power. Rather, power over others can come into existence only in juxtaposition to the powerless, or at least with regard to something else. What is amusing about all of this concerns the official definitions of societal authoritarian power.
If the nature of the "others," was openly and frankly identified, it would be perfectly legitimate to define power as control and influence over and among the powerless. This definition would, of course, more efficiently reflect the necessary relationship between the few powerful and the very many powerless. THE POWERLESS DO NOT GENERALLY THINK OF THEMSELVES AS POWERLESS As it is, though, the topic of power is full of beastly glitches, and via the above it is possible to encounter one of them right away.
And it is indeed possible to evade the implicit issues here because power and powerlessness are always relative to each other.
But evading the implicit issues has another problematical quality that comes to light if and when one wishes to become more generally powerful than one actually is.
These inadequacies perhaps have something to do with whatever is involved. But there is a larger reason why the powerless don't have much power. And the reason has something to do with the necessary relationship between the powerful and the powerless. If the powerful need large reserves of the powerless in order to have power over them, it would be quite necessary to condition powerlessness into the masses via social and educational artifices. And so the fault of powerlessness might not exclusively be one's own, but one of programming from external sources. Perfectly legitimate books detailing the conventional anatomy of power do emphasize the importance of social conditioning so as to ensure at least subservience, if not complete powerlessness. THE THREE HIDDEN PARTS OF POWER OVER OTHERS If the foregoing is considered, the topic OF and the phenomena of power easily break apart into three fundamental parts having the following priority:
The above three power parts suggest that the powerless must exist before the powerful can surface among them, to exert control and influence over the masses they have emerged from.
Chapter 4 ♦ Our Human Power Species
AT FIRST take, any effort to establish a functional link between power and our human species might seem uninteresting and quite distant from the subject of power itself.
THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN SOURCES AND MANIFESTATIONS OF POWER One of the ultimate issues regarding empowerment has to do with where power comes from in the first place.
If one spends a lot of time surveying the literature about power, it is quite clear that most assume that manifestations of power are the same as sources of it. But the term MANIFEST refers to whatever is "readily perceived by the senses, especially by the sight;" or to whatever is "easily understood or recognized by the mind."
Thus, if there is no point of origin for something, then there will be no manifestations of it.
As will become very clear, the foregoing discussion regarding sources and manifestations of power is absolutely super-loaded with implications having to do with groking not only the phenomena of empowerment but the phenomena of depowerment as well. OUR SPECIES ERECTS POWER STRUCTURES It is quite clear that people can gain access to positions of power within given power structures.
The general result of this is that those who want to climb societal or organizational power ladders within the power structures most likely see those structures as sources of power regarding manifestations of control, authority, and influence over others.
At this point, it is reasonable to wonder from where and why power structures come into existence.
SOCIETY is majorly defined as "an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another."
There is no disagreement among scientists, philosophers, or sociologists that wherever people congregate for any length of time, they set about erecting, or formatting, social structures.
However, what is NOT usually discussed, at least not in any clear-cut way, is that all societies erect power structures within their "developed organized patterns," and these power structures assume central control of whatever else the social structure consists of. It is really quite fair to consider that if developing the elements of structured socialization is actually a species thing, then the developing of power structures is also a species thing. Indeed, where a social structure comes into existence, a power structure becomes formatted within it. Thus, if it is possible to consider where power basically comes from, one will eventually have to conclude that it consists of important and strong elements within the human species as a whole, or within the general profile of the human species taken altogether. Those important and strong elements download into each individual of the species, after which (1) the individuals express them if they can, and (2) also collectively design and set up power structures that can come to house large societies and even vast civilizations. If one pursues this line of thinking, one can eventually encounter a number of cultural and knowledge oddities, the sum of which adds up to a surprising absence of considerations in this regard. This is to say that although the topic of POWER obviously constitutes a very important element of our species as a whole, that element is hardly ever mentioned in philosophic or scientific descriptions of our species. GIVING IDENTITY TO OUR SPECIES The scientific classification of life forms did not begin until the mid-1600s, after which a species became identified by life forms that had common characteristics, and whose male and female specimens could mate and produce progeny.
Our species was eventually given the Latin names of HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS. This name can be translated in a number of ways. Some options are:
In other words, intelligence – not power – was somehow considered as our species most distinguishing attribute. But there is a rather enormous glitch in the above. While it is certainly true that intelligence and power have some relationship with each other, it is also true that power can design ways and means to modulate and also suppress intelligence on behalf of this or that societal power structure. This is what is meant by those authors who, attempting to describe the anatomy of power, refer to "social conditioning" of the masses which results in subordinating the vastly larger populations to the will of others. Indeed, it is quite understandable that "conditioned power" refers to the educational persuasion of what the individual, in the social context, has been brought to believe is inherently correct. Once this is achieved, in the societal context, submission to the authority of others reflects the accepted view of what the individual should believe, think, and do REGARDLESS of any intelligence that might be housed in the individual. In any event, even though power and intelligence do have various kinds of relationships, they are not the same thing. It can always be seen that manifestations of power constitute a more central situation to our species than intelligence does. It can also be discovered that power only tolerates intelligence to the degree that the latter is not troublesome to it. We of course need to think of our species as having intelligence, and probably as having creativity, too. But at our species level and immediately superior, as it were, to intelligence and creativity, is the consideration of Man who has and can make power, and knows it. As it really is, then, our species literally drips with power, far more than it drips with intelligence or even creativity.
OUR SPECIES ENDOWED WITH POWERS In the biological and zoological sciences, it is assumed, as a dominant and unquestionable paradigm, that a species is basically designed for basic physical survival of itself within given environments. But if this would be the case regarding the human species, then that species would not need the extraordinary line-up of additional endowments, powers, faculties, and abilities it is widely known to possess. (It is worthwhile pointing up one such power – the power of discovering and accumulating knowledge and THEN the power of access and jurisdiction over it.) This is the same as saying that our species is remarkably over-endowed with regard to mere survival – indeed so over-endowed that there is an enormous scientific and philosophic gap between it and all other known species inhabiting this planet. Our species is known to have powers and abilities it doesn't use, a good part of which fall into the category known as powers of mind – but which could more correctly be referred to as power of powers. It is perhaps a bit awkward to suggest that our species is a species having the power of powers. Even so, it is our species that resolutely goes about erecting power structures of all kinds and shapes, the most basic and obvious purpose of which is to have control, authority, and influence over powers.
Chapter 5 ♦ The Role of Secrecy In Designing a Power Structure
THERE ARE any number of ways of picturing the designs, or lay-outs, of societal power structures, and it is the function of this chapter to at least cast a brief glance at some of them.
THE POWER PYRAMID DESIGN As we have seen, power structures in modern times usually are pictured as having the shape of equilateral pyramids. The pyramids are then subdivided, showing the powerful few at the apex, the powerless masses at the broad bottom, with gradients of power between those two categories. This, of course, is a neat way of picturing in that it can be groked all at once. As it stands, there is nothing wrong with this pyramidal presentation – with two rather subtle exceptions. First, the powerful themselves endorse this pyramidal presentation, since it establishes sequential gradients of order while at the same time letting everyone know that this is how it is. The pyramidal format also gives the subtle but explicit impression that access to power merely requires a vertical assent to the "top." Second, and even more subtle, empowerment in the pyramidal format is to be understood AS that vertical assent and nothing else, and specifically so within the existing power structure and what it stands for.
It is thus that the pyramidal design for a power structure, even if objectionable in many respects, exerts a somewhat hypnotic allure over the masses incorporated within it. What is not expressly visible in the power pyramid design is a significant factor pointed up earlier.
Thus, ways and means must be discovered and implemented to keep the majority of the powerless as powerless as possible.
THREE OTHER HELPFUL WAYS OF PICTURING POWER STRUCTURES As already discussed in chapter 1, power structures can be pictured as intricate and confusing labyrinths.
Another reason has to do with the fact that power structures are rife with cleverly and deliberately engineered misinformation and disinformation activities. These activities are designed to be labyrinthine in character so as to mislead and confuse general cognitive awareness of what is really going on.
Another way of picturing power structures is one that was fashionable in the late nineteenth and throughout the twentieth centuries. Power can be pictured as a gigantic octopus having many more than eight "arms." This image often appeared in the media, and was used to portray the powerful, their elite, and their offices in the act of grasping manifold elements, especially economic ones, that would reinforce their power status.
And, as has already been discussed, one of the most functional ways of picturing power structures has to do with the proverbial iceberg, one-fifth of which is visible above the water in which it floats, while the other four-fifths are hidden in the water beneath the one-fifth. THE GREAT ANTIQUITY OF POWER MACHINATIONS AND PROBLEMS In its official definition, human history begins with the advent of some form of writing which makes it possible to recover a chronological record of significant past events. Anything that might have happened prior to that is officially referred to as pre-history or as prehistorical.
As is so far known, the first literate civilization consisted of the Sumerians of the Near East and who, at some point around 3000 B.C., developed a type of writing now known as cuneiform script. And so the historical period begins at about that date and place.
The so-called pre-historical period thus ranges from about 35,000 years ago up to the advent of writing at about 3,000 B.C., at which time human history begins.
In any event, with the emergence of the great Sumerian and associated civilizations, one can find a factor which modern historians do not emphasize too much.
This can only mean that our species became preoccupied with the designing of power structures during the long prehistorical period, and did so without writing and the particular kind of literacy associated with it.
There are very few human elements that can equally and thus consistently transcend and link the very long prehistorical and the rather short historical periods of our species.
THE NATURE OF SECRECY The nature of secrecy is, of course, to keep something hidden from others, and the modern definitions can altogether be groked accordingly.
The foregoing definitions are, of course, modern and consist of contemporary understanding as to what comprises the whole of secrecy.
However, projecting the contemporary definitions of SECRECY back into the past, even into the very distant past, probably is not too much an anachronistic application. Indeed, it seems quite likely that our species, either as Homo sapiens sapiens, or as Cro-Magnon Man, understood elements of secrecy from the get-go 35,000 years ago, and also groked that secrecy was opportune for designing power structures.
TAB5_Magnis_augue_pellentesque_amet TAB6_Magnis_augue_pellentesque_amet TAB7_Magnis_augue_pellentesque_amet TAB8_Magnis_augue_pellentesque_amet VOLUME I - PART II ♦ THE SOCIETAL PANORAMA OF POWER
Chapter 6 ♦ Societal Power vs The Absence of Power Schools
MANY INDIVIDUALS want to discover ways and means that might lead to some kind of empowerment.
There are two principle reasons, which can be thought of as barriers to gaining empowerment.
The second barrier can also be easily recognized, IF one somehow chances to notice its existence.
Simply put, there are no socially endorsed power schools in which the general public might educationally enroll in order to learn about the nature of power, its manifold elements, and its workings among the populations in general. As has already been discussed from different perspectives, the activities and problems of power have been present within our species from time immemorial – so much so that like life and death themselves, power can be thought of as one of the major implacable facts of human existence. It is not altogether out of order to suggest that wherever humans are or wherever they go, they transport with them not only the human power principle in general, but especially those activities and problems of the kind of power specifically defined as control, authority, and influence over others. As also discussed earlier, the "others" have to be present in order to have power over them. So wherever humans go they will transport with them the techniques of ensuring the presence of the "others."
SOCIETAL TECHNIQUES AIMED AT PREVENTING WIDE-SPREAD EMPOWERMENT In modern times, the whole of the techniques is also sometimes referred to as social engineering. Such engineering always has two faces or two sides; the visible or obvious one; and the invisible or not obvious one. It can be said, without too much error, that most people naturally focus on what is visible, or at least upon what they can perceive.
The major societal power dynamics of the modern period do not differ all that much from earlier historical ones. This is to say that while power contexts might change in the historical sense, the essential power structures remain much the same, especially with regard to their visible and invisible faces.
Having said this much about the visible and invisible aspects of power, it is now necessary to point up what might qualify as the "top dog" invisible aspect of power and societal power structures. MODERN KNOWLEDGE BY-PASSES IN-DEPTH INFORMATION ABOUT POWER This top-dog invisible aspect is slightly complicated, so it is necessary to erect some kind of reality basis for it. Thus, it is first necessary to indicate a singular and important fundamental premise supporting the idea of the Modern Age.
Thus, in the short time-span of about 25 modernist years, there appeared: TECHNOLOGY - defined as applied science. BIOLOGY - the science that studies living organisms and vital processes. BOTANY - a scientific branch of biology dealing with plant life. ZOOLOGY - a scientific branch of biology concerned with the animal kingdom and its members as individuals and classes of them, and with animal life. PSYCHOLOGY - the science that studies mind and behavior. SOCIOLOGY - the science that studies society, social institutions, and social relationships. The modern age also eventually developed SEXOLOGY – the study of sex or of the interactions of the sexes, especially among human beings. The suffix LOGY is taken to mean the organized study and the science of something. And so in keeping with its foundational premise, the modern period produced the several OLOGIES mentioned above. THE ABSENCE OF THE SCIENCE OF POWEROLOGY However, among its gigantic amassing of all kinds of organized knowledge, the modernist period DID NOT establish and develop anything akin to POWEROLOGY – and which, if it existed, would refer to the organized study of power, its science, and the applications of that science. The crucial reasons for the absence of powerology are not hard to grok. If power might be thought of as the most important thing in the world, then obtaining it will also be one of the most competitive enterprises in that world.
If THAT is so, then logically speaking there must somehow exist an organized study, a science, and an applied technology regarding ways and means to defeat the arising of powerology (and empowerment), and to eradicate whatever might somehow get it started. THE ABSENCE OF POWER SCHOOLS This is clearly to say that IF educational powerology is persona non grata within the panorama of societal power structures, then it should of course be taken for granted that anything resembling power schools will never see the light of day. To repeat for clarity, there are no societally endorsed public educational courses that might be called Power Studies 101 whose curricula would teach students HOW TO understand and gain control, authority, and influence over others. Of course, such studies would also have to include important information that distinguishes between visible and invisible aspects of power as well as information about functionable methods not only regarding empowerment, but also workable techniques regarding depowerment. Indeed, and by necessity, the powerology curriculum would obviously have to include important information regarding methods of depowerment, in order to ensure the continuing presence of "others" to have power over. It can easily be established, with rather convincing obviousness, that power schools do not exist – at least of the kind that are open to the public. That this aspect of power is not noticed in a large-scale way is quite remarkable. However, one explanation might be that those who examine and write about the anatomy of power are so conditioned to and fixated on its visible aspects that they cannot espy ANY of its invisible ones. In any event, if there is a monolithic societal absence of power schools, then by extension there would also have to be an important absence of power studies within other meaningful socializing activities, such as philosophy. THE ABSENCE OF PHILOSOPHICAL POWER STUDIES The issues and circumstances of power should have taken on extreme philosophical importance ages ago, for the question might well be asked: How can human societies consider themselves philosophically without figuring out the central meanings and importance that power has? The three major activities of PHILOSOPHY are:
If these activities are connected up with power and power-making, then any actual and real pursuit of wisdom has immediately to be jettisoned.
With regard to the second activity of philosophy, a search for truth through logical reasoning can often be in conflict with a search for power based on factual observations – for example, those of factual force, cunning, deceit, and social conditioning.
With the third activity, there has probably been no societal power structure that would relish and endorse an analysis of either the grounds or the fundamental beliefs concerning power – unless such analysis proved favorable to it.
So, philosophers decidedly belong among the "others" that the powerful have control, authority, and influence over. And indeed, it would be logical that the workings of power structures must obtain control and authority over anything that is mind-influencing – such as philosophy. It is thus that philosophy, in its purest and ideal sense, must not only be of perpetual, but of serious concern to power structures – with the result that smart philosophers have long understood that frank philosophical discussions of power as such are not only taboo but can be dangerous. And so there is almost a complete absence of philosophical studies regarding power. And what does exist along such lines usually does not constitute a study based in logical reasoning, but merely a note about the visible aspects of power. For example, in 1967, Macmillian, Inc., a major publisher to be sure, brought out THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY, a tremendous work many years in preparation. It consisted of eight volumes, altogether amounting to just over 2,120 oversized pages. Every conceivable philosophical topic and philosopher was given lengthy write-ups in it. In this comprehensive compilation, the topic of POWER could not be avoided altogether. So the entry for it consists of only two and a half pages, the short length of which is surely indecent for a topic which is otherwise of such enormous importance. The entry tells not much more than a street-wise individual will already know about power. It more or less concluded that:
Well, what has been quoted above surely reflects what the powerful WISH to be openly known and accepted about power, and the compilers of the encyclopedia did their duty. THE SOCIETAL FATE OF POWER STUDIES, POWEROLOGY, AND POWER PSYCHOLOGY If, from the perspective of invested power structures, there are to be no power schools, then it generally must follow that there is to be no knowledge of power either – at least of the kind made openly available to the powerless who might empower themselves thereby. These, then, are required to be socially conditioned so as to conform and exist within the design and needs of this or that power structure. But it also must follow that any significant empowerment activities that somehow get going, and which are intended for mass consumption, must swiftly be deconstructed. There are many horror stories having to do with the deconstruction of such fated empowerment efforts. But one of those efforts is quite significant, precisely because it directly involved making the powerless more powerful. Early in the twentieth century, various efforts grouped together as power psychology got going in Europe. One of the chief exponents was Alfred Adler (1870-1937) who founded the school of individual psychology Adler was among the first to reject the Freudian emphasis upon sex. He maintained that all personality difficulties have their roots in feelings of inferiority (power-lessness) derived from physical, intellectual, or from conflict with the natural and social environment that restricts an individual's need for power and self-assertion. In Adler's terms, feelings of inferiority (diminished power) were the opposites of feelings of superiority (enhanced power). Adler thus saw behavior disorders as over-compensation for power deficiencies and socio-environmental depowerment. He founded the school of individual psychology in order to treat and cure individuals suffering from the inferiority complex manifested as diminished power, thereby restoring them to their natural powers of self-assertion. As might be imagined, Adler's school of power psychology got off to a brilliant start. This kind of thing, of course, constitutes something akin to a nightmare among stalwart managers of power structures.
Adler might have understood inferiority complexes quite well, but he clearly did not understand the machinations of power structures.
Human nature had long been thought of as containing, among its other qualities, the famous or infamous Power Drive, elements of which presumably dwelled in everyone, just as human nature did.
Thus, in his book, Adler posited that the urge to power was a constituent of human nature itself. As such, power should be dissected to be better understood and managed.
As a result, both the workings of human nature and the pursuit of power psychology disappeared as such. Even so, and if a little dated by now, Adler's books are well worth reading by anyone grappling with the problems of empowerment.
Chapter 7 ♦ The Web of Secrets Preventing Access to Empowerment
THE ELEVEN most obvious definitions of secrecy have been discussed in chapter 5. Via those definitions it can be supposed that the term secrecy represents the ways and means of hiding things from others.
By way of explanation, if we can think that the "urge" to power is a species-wide aspect of human nature, then it is possible to place the "urge" to secrecy quite close to the power urge. Almost anyone can discover that power and secrecy are always found together or working in tandem. It is important to point up this factual relationship, because conventional books that review the most obvious anatomy of power NEVER introduce the aspect of secrecy as part-and-parcel of power games always on-going within societal power structures. THE CONCEPT OF A WEB Taken from old Norse into English, the term WEB refers to weaving something so as to snare, entrap, or entangle. Three of the major definitions of TANGLE are given as:
It is logical to think that if all the elements of power and empowerment stood revealed to everyone, it would then be difficult to format a power structure of any kind because everyone would more or less be equivalent.
THE CLOSE LINKAGE OF SECRECY AND POWER The reason for the close linkage of power and secrecy can now be seen as obvious, in that there is no supportable reason for secrecy unless it is used to deny information to others for the empowering benefits of those who instigate the denial.
The foregoing refers to affairs of power and power structures that are quite complicated. But to aid in beginning to sort through it, two principle kinds or uses of secrecy can be identified. Most are familiar with the fact that power structures utilize secrecy to gain or obtain advantages with respect to other power structures, especially regarding militant, economic, and, sometimes, ideological goals.
This very large cadre is often referred to as "the masses" of individuals incorporated in some subservient way into the power structure. But, and to emphasize, without the presence of the incorporated masses, the powerful would not have much to have power over. There is thus a quite dynamic relationship not only between the relatively powerless and the confirmed powerful, but also between power and secrecy.
There is a useful analogy via which the powerful can be pictured as the head and the powerless as the body. If the powerless suddenly abandon the head, then the head has nothing to be the head of. DEPRIVING THE MASSES OF POWER KNOWLEDGE Thus has emerged the central dual situation of power rulership throughout history having to do with the powerless masses.
This dual situation Is a problem because all individuals of our species are born with a mind that can organize information and figure things out.
If these innate faculties were to be nurtured and developed among the powerless masses, then the head of a power structure would be faced with all sorts of problems regarding whom to have power over. Indeed, dramatic revolutions can ensue if the masses become too dissatisfied with the assigned lot as the powerless. In modern times, those who study and write about the anatomy of power do indicate that the masses within a given power structure must be made to undergo "social conditioning" so as to become "subservient to and acceptive" of the powerful.
There is a reason for this. If they are not exactly the same, social conditioning, behavior modification, and mind-control are at least depowerment siblings having many similar aspects and results. Social conditioning can, of course, be imposed by abject and overt force, and history is full of such occasions.
Thus, use of overt force on behalf of establishing social conditioning has not proven very workable in the long run, largely because those targeted for the conditioning can recognize it for what it is.
THE MAJOR STRUCTURE OF DEPOWERMENT Those seeking some kind of empowerment usually focus on what they imagine to be its seemingly obvious processes, and usually pay no attention to the processes of depowerment. However, depowerment processes can more factually account for the origins of their perceived powerlessness, and thus their feelings of inferiority. Alfred Adler, whose empowerment efforts have already been discussed, clearly put one finger on the machinations of depowerment.
THE BEST KINDS OF DEPOWERMENT PROCESSES We might assume that most individuals incorporated into a power structure would not want to undergo conditioning toward depowerment, and would probably fight against it if the conditioning became easily identifiable.
THE ABSENCE OF POWER SCHOOLS As already reviewed, hardly anyone seems to recognize the ABSENCE of power schools.
THE ABSENCE OF ENCYCLOPEDIAS REGARDING THE SCOPE OF HUMAN POWERS AND ABILITIES But if absences of power schools might be identified, it can as well come to light that no encyclopedias have ever been compiled that list and describe the whole of known or suspected range of human powers and abilities. The existence of this important vacuum is almost never identified, and so individuals have no real way of identifying their own powers and abilities. This vacuum is exceedingly strange, especially with regard to modern scientific and psychological times. During those times, concise and comprehensive encyclopedias of sea shells, slime molds, architectural edifices, of toys and antiques, and of and distant star systems have been produced.
But no encyclopedias of human powers and abilities have seen the light of day. THE ABSENCE OF STUDIES REGARDING THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF HUMAN AWARENESS The nature of awareness, and its full scope, must constitute a key factor not only in respect to empowerment potentials, but also as a factor for basic survival.
Expanding one's awareness potentials certainly plays a crucial role with regard to empowerment and to power.
THE ABSENCE OF STUDIES REGARDING INTUITION, TELEPATHY, AND FORESIGHT The attributes of intuition, telepathy, and foresight are so visible among our species and in all cultures, so much so that most at least tacitly accept without question their real existence.
Thus, any full magnification of those three attributes would not only have significant, but decidedly nightmarish implications regarding empowerment and invasions of secrecy webs. PERPETUATING A STATE OF UNKNOWING REGARDING EMPOWERMENT When the majority of people are kept in a state of unknowing, they are easier to influence, control, or dominate by the managers of power-structure systems. The best way of defeating empowerment among the masses is to keep absent ANY knowledge that has real implications toward empowerment. And almost anything along those lines can be rendered invisible, or at least cast into confusion. The whole of this process can be referred to as the web of secrets preventing access to empowerment. Those who aspire to some kind of empowerment might take more than just a passing interest in this deadly web and its secrets. THE LONG HISTORY OF DEPOWERMENT BY SOCIETAL DESIGN The societal prohibition against real and workable power-knowledge is so long-enduring, so long sustained, and so LOGICAL to power-holders, that it need not even be put into print as a directive. It is practically INTUITIVE among power-holders; it is unspoken, it is silent – and well maintained. Just imagine, for example, that you are a power-holder of a high office or position.
In any event, there is no power structure that can afford to have even a small portion of our species become awaken to our species power faculties. Theoretically awakened, perhaps. But never dynamically awakened. The best way to accomplish this negative power engineering in the long term is:
The three items above more or less characterize the web of secrets that efficiently prevent access to empowerment.
Chapter 8 ♦ The Traditional Power Pyramid
OF ALL the possible designs for societal power structures, the shape of the structure as a pyramid has been most prevalent throughout history.
One of the subtle results of this is that writers seeking to reveal the anatomy of power end up assessing not the anatomy of power itself, but the anatomy of the conventional power pyramid.
SOCIAL CONDITIONING ON BEHALF OF A PYRAMIDAL POWER STRUCTURE As we have seen, the concept of "social conditioning" is pointed up in conventional discussions of power, which also establish that it is generally achieved by two visible methods:
Condign punishment refers to punishment that is thought to be deserved and appropriate within the contexts of any given power structure. Examples of it range from mere social and professional condemnation to serious imprisonment or terminal execution.
But beyond mentioning that social conditioning is achieved by affirmative reward and condign punishment, none of the conventional assessments enter into extensive discussions regarding how wholesale depowerment is subtly achieved. So it is exceedingly difficult to discover the ways and means employed to achieve that particular kind of conditioning.
THE CONVENTIONAL CONCEPT OF THE POWER PYRAMID DESIGN As briefly mentioned in chapter 3, the design of the conventional power pyramid is usually presented in the neat shape of an equilateral triangle.
The "top dogs," as they are often referred to, are those few apex dwellers who exercise ultimate control, authority and influence throughout the entire pyramid collective.
The chief VISIBLE vehicles for the conditioning of the underdogs consist of some kind of affirmative rewards together with examples of condign punishment when necessary or needed. In this sense, the societal power pyramid can be seen as incorporating and enforcing the two most famous aspects of stimulus-response behaviorism – pain if in error, and reward if in agreement. INVISIBLE ASPECTS OF THE CONVENTIONAL POWER PYRAMID If the anatomy of the conventional power pyramid design is studied in depth, it turns out that certain, but exceedingly important and more complex, factors are conveniently smoothed over by casting the design into the neat shape of an equilateral triangle.
One possible reason is that the neat shape presents an apparently complete, authoritative but exceedingly simplified visage of power which, on average, can be understood by the simple-minded and accepted by the naive.
NUMERICAL POPULATIONS INCORPORATED INTO A SOCIETAL POWER STRUCTURE Perhaps the first of such inconsistencies has to do with the actual numerical count of populations thought to be incorporated into the pyramidal schematic.
The term INCORPORATE is defined as:
Technically speaking, then, the vast populations of the powerless cannot actually be incorporated into a power structure in order to form a consistent whole.
If the foregoing can be considered, then the conventional idea of the incorporative power structure feasibility breaks apart into two structures:
The latter, of course, cannot be incorporated into the former. As already pointed up, permitting this would erase the important boundaries between the powerless and the powerful.
THE MULTIPLICITY OF POWER STRUCTURES WITHIN A POWER STRUCTURE The idea that the entire nature of a power structure can be understood or groked as a neat equilateral pyramid definitely conceals the fact that a given power structure contains numerous power structures that are vitally dynamic – each of which seek dominance over all the others.
In reality, a power structure cannot be thought of as one singular structure. In actual terms, "a" power structure is a multiplex construction or ensemble made up of numerous power structures, all of which can, and often do, have their separate areas of control, authority, and influence. The idea that these can be internalized or incorporated so as to seem a unified whole makes it difficult to identify from where the real control, authority, and influence of power actually emanates and downloads.
POWER WITH REGARD TO MEANINGFUL AREAS OF ACTIVITY To get more intimately into what is involved in the multiplexity, if power is defined as control, authority, and influence over others, it surely needs to be defined in an additional aspect: control, authority, and influence over meaningful areas of activity.
Within the neat pyramidal concept, these are often indicated as "arms" of power and the powerful. But in actual fact they either are, or can be, power structures in their own right. Each can also have covert or behind-the-scenes power of sometimes enormous magnitude. All things considered, most consistently real power is probably closely associated with:
Wealth is always associated with power, but wealth alone does not automatically grant access to societal power, an access which many who are not wealthy often achieve. THE "ARM" OF POWER STRUCTURES INVESTED WITH THE POWERS OF EDUCATING THE MASSES The point of all of the foregoing has been to dissect the conventional picture of a societal power structure, and to do so in a manner that more accurately distinguishes between the collective powerful entity and the collective powerless entity. Each of these can be thought of as "civilizations" in their own right, with the minority powerful civilization controlling the massive powerless one.
The best vehicle for implementing and maintaining control is the socio-cultural factor called education – and which, from the viewpoint of the really powerful, can be designed to consist of anything and everything except real knowledge regarding ways and means of empowerment.
This deciding includes:
In his book, THE ANATOMY OF POWER, John Kenneth Galbraith all too briefly discusses the necessity of social conditioning with regard to educationally formatting the masses so as to establish among them a broad consensus acceptance of organized power structures.
Obviously, the social conditioning leads toward installing acceptance of power and the powerful – and leads away from installing knowledge about power and empowerment, and about depowerment as well.
Indeed, omitting certain factors from the overall human knowledge pool is clearly one excellent way of keeping them invisible and inaccessible.
With exceptions to be discussed ahead, it is thus possible that the web of secrets preventing access to knowledge of empowerment is subtly implemented via the deliberately selected parameters of societally approved education. By far and large, humans usually and unquestionably assume the authenticity and truth regarding education downloading from approved societal power sources.
This means that if the officially educated of a given power structure have not learned of the existence of empowerment and depowerment processes, then they themselves, will be of tremendous assistance in denying the possibility of such processes.
Chapter 9 ♦ Four Generic Kinds of Individual and Societal Power
IT IS generally understood that "power games" go on within societal and corporate power pyramids. It therefore seems that those games denote where the power action is at, and so those seeking to ascend to the heights of the power pyramid feel obliged to take part in the games. But any action that can be perceived is probably quite superficial, and belongs to the fifth of the power iceberg that is visible above the water line. The visible aspects will always obscure subtle aspects and problems. AN OBSCURED PROBLEM THAT CAN DEFEAT EMPOWERMENT Power games will be discussed in the following chapter. Before getting into that topic it is necessary to point up a problem that is central to power games, but which is never mentioned in conventional discussions about power. The lack of discussions of course tends to obscure the existence of the problem and render it into at least quasi invisibility. It has to do with what kinds of power are involved within this or that power game – and if there ever have been problems characterized by massive apparencies and illusions, this is certainly one of them. The precise function of this chapter is:
WHY THE PROBLEM BECOMES OBSCURED The first dimension of the obscured problem has to do with why it is obscured in the first place. Most people realize that different kinds of power exist, and this is more or less in keeping with the old axiom that power has a thousand different faces.
A very important aspect having to do with achieving more empowerment is that the thinking patterns of the depowered are usually limited by what they think power consists of
FRAMES OF REFERENCE REGARDING WHAT POWER IS THOUGHT TO CONSIST OF To help grok this overall panorama better, just imagine a large movie multiplex having fifty small theaters each showing a film that portrays a different kind of power.
This overall situation is important when it comes to the processes of empowerment at the individual level – because most people who would like empowerment will attempt to achieve it within the contexts of their existing frames of reference. This situation is important if viewed from the panoramic level of the powerful, and who, as history attests, are not all that receptive to any wholesale real empowerment at the individual level. One way to prevent, or at least to complicate, the individual kind of empowerment is to keep the frames of reference regarding power as limited and as simple as possible.
Another observable way to limit these frames of reference regarding power is more subtle, but equally effective. This involves setting up intellectual and educational frames of reference, each of which apparently identifies different types of power.
INTELLECTUALISMS MISTAKEN AS DIFFERENT KINDS OF POWER For example, most will intellectually assume that socialism, democracy, communism, capitalism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, anarchism, revolutionism, fundamentalism, individualism, and even utopianism, represent different kinds of power. The typical pyramidal power structure can be superimposed with great ease on all of those intellectualisms. Yet they are not kinds of power, but merely refer to methods or ways whereby wealth, influence, belief, and information are to be managed within the structure. Power still belongs to the elite at the tops of the pyramids. Most frames of reference and intellectualisms regarding power are, of course, only fabricated ideas that shift about and come and go. The only three aspects about them that remain similar and familiar over time are the pyramidal formats themselves, their internal power ladders, and how empowerment and depowerment are to be managed. Indeed, there is upward power mobility to be had even among anarchists and utopians, and certainly among intellectuals themselves, and so there will be power ladders to climb in order to gain proximity to chief anarchists, utopians, and intellectuals. If one conceptualizes empowerment within the contexts of shifting, fabricated ideas about power, then it is little wonder that the processes of empowerment remain elusive, if not dumbfounding. GENERIC KINDS OF POWER It is interesting to note that most writers attempting to establish the conventional anatomy of power do not distinguish very well between the kinds.
All formats of consolidated societal power quickly assume the power pyramid design, after which they all look relatively the same. And so it is easy enough to assume that kinds of power need not be distinguished in the conventional sense. But if the anatomy of power is examined from the viewpoint of the powerless, as well as from any viewpoint relevant to empowerment and depowerment, then identifying actual kinds of power takes on strategic and tactical meaning.
As has been mentioned in chapter 2, societal power formats are artifices designed to acquire and manage power by the few.
Yet, although the societal power structures are designed social artifices, basic human power per se is neither an artifice nor an intellectualism. Indeed, the artifices and intellectualisms are merely attached or appended to the real existence of our species innate and indwelling powers. If this is the case, then our species must have generic powers so that the artifices and intellectualisms can become attached to them. Indeed, if the generic powers did not exist, then the artifices and intellectualisms would have nothing to attach to. The term GENERIC refers to whatever relates to or is characteristic of a whole group, class, or species. It would be somewhat comical to assume that our species is not a power species. Indeed, our species physically, mentally, and creatively displays, even flaunts, its power concomitants. Thus, our species must have many generic kinds of power, of which the following four are the most obvious and easily identifiable:
On average, it is not too stressful to isolate at least the parameters of these four generic kinds of power – because they are always being experienced in a social sense at all levels and within given social frameworks. The only real difficulty is that the four kinds are usually found superimposed or intermixed in some fashion, which makes it a challenge to establish descriptive definitions for them.
FORCE POWER The most familiar generic, and thus most obvious kind of power is force power because :
In its more overt format, and bluntly put, force power is the power of the fist, gun, club; the power of armies; the power of take-overs.
Force power can be either overt or covert. Usually it is overt, even if subtle, since most merchants of this kind of power want it to be clearly and unambiguously recognized. Force power probably should be more clearly understood as some kind of enforcement-power via fear, since its key word IS enforcement combined with fear of duress and punishment if the enforcement by itself does not succeed. Force power is distinguishable from artificial power and real power because the latter two are based upon some kind of social agreement. But force power is based in non-agreement, which is to say in some kind of duress or threat of it. It must again be pointed up that if there is no one to have something enforced upon them, then force power cannot exist.
So force power seems majorly to be composed of enforcement of some kind. But whether it is composed of enforcing opinions, beliefs, or realities onto others, or of aggression of armed military take-over might, it can easily be viewed as parasitic. In other words, force power "feeds" on enforcement, and thus those who are victims of force power constitute the "host" that force power parasites feed upon. Just imagine yourself as a force power merchant with nothing or no one to enforce something on. You might get the idea that force power is a parasite always looking for something or someone to feed upon in order to sustain its own sense of why it is existing. Manifestations of force power almost always end in disaster of some kind, later if not sooner. It is the largest contributor on this planet to what is referred to as "conflict." Therefore, it is not surprising that force power is ultimately experienced as destructive – even though its opening shots, so to speak, may seem to be mounted on glory, success, and that particular ecstasy that arises out of domination ideas.
ARTIFICIAL POWER It is a generic aspect of our species to engineer and erect societal power structures, within which are different gradients of power management. These range downward from the most powerful to the least powerful. The gradients, however, are delegated by the powerful, and so they do not consist of powers unto themselves.
The distinction of artificial power may be a little difficult to work with, but it is necessary in order to help distinguish real power. If control, authority, or influence are inspected closely enough, it can be seen that they represent not power itself, but status within an organized societal power framework.
This is to say that power is attributed to the status, not to the occupant of the status. Those trying to climb power ladders within a power structure are more actually climbing status ladders. There is thus a persistent confusion between status and power in that they are mistakenly seen as much the same thing. However, status can easily come – and just as easily go. Many do achieve this or that kind of status, but when they exit or retire from it, they are suddenly without power (authority) again. If one subtracts the status from apparent power-figures, they are seen as having no power at all. They are again nobody. And here is the chief scenario within which power is said to be a fickle thing – when in observable actuality it is status that is more fickle.
REAL POWER The basic distinction between artificial and real power is that the former is socially contrived and engineered whereas the latter is not artificial, contrived, fraudulent, or illusory.
So most societal power structures are perpetually nervous at the possibility of real power. As a result, educational and social conditioning steps are taken to make general understanding of it as convoluted and impenetrable as possible. The term REAL is defined as:
More intimate discussions regarding real power will commence in Part Three ahead. But here it needs to be pointed up that while artificial power can intellectually be recognized as such, real power seems to be a felt or a sensed thing. This is to say that it is felt or sensed by OTHERS in some kind of empathic, intuitive, or telepathic manner, and in ways that go beyond the contexts of mere status-holding.
One of the major reasons it is difficult to recognize and identify the contexts of real power is that they extend beyond the physical and the tangible. Within conventional contexts, power is judged almost exclusively as control of the tangible, or what represents it such as wealth, property, and money.
The principal methods that advocates of materialism seize upon to deal with and control the intangible is to deny it exists and then to socially condition against any knowledge about it. From the viewpoint of materialism, this is a logical thing to do regarding power. Indeed, within the contexts of power over the tangible, it is easy to know what there is to have power over – and this includes the powerless in the form of their physical bodies, not in their form as beings of our species. If the existence of the intangible, including the intangible nature of real power, was to be admitted as a real reality, then impressive confusions would immediately surface regarding what, exactly, one is to have power over. The best way to avoid the emergence of such confusions is to deny the existence of the intangible altogether – and, of course, to somehow punish those who seek efficient enlightenment along those lines.
STEALTH POWER If our species is a power species, then it must contain generic faculties and mental mechanisms via which power can be efficiently manifested, implemented, and controlled with regard to specific usage.
Indeed, the human body/mind systems seem designed for utter efficiency in all of their aspects, and when that efficiency is not apparent the reasons must be judged as originating from factors other than in the systems themselves. It is completely understood that any system, no matter how efficiently designed to function, can become downgraded by factors imposed so as to distort and disarm the efficiency Such distorting factors can be imposed, for example, into the efficient systems by social conditioning, mind-control, and by deliberate destimulation of the intelligence and accompanying awarenesses required for the efficient functioning.
Ideally speaking, a truly intelligent power system would be obliged to recognize that it must protect itself against such distorting factors.
In both essence and in fact, the truly intelligent power system must take measures so as to conceal its existence from other intelligent power systems which might undertake steps to degrade its functioning.
Everyone at least suspects that hidden and secret power exist. The terms HIDDEN and SECRET principally refer to WHAT is kept from observation, view, or recognition. The term STEALTH, however, is defined as:
STEALTH, therefore, is a cut above the hidden and the secret, although causing things to become hidden and secret obviously are adjuncts to it.
If human history was not full of confirmed examples of stealth power, then it might be easy enough to think that stealth is artificially designed into power games simply as yet another flimsy societal artifice. But because of the copious evidence attesting to the real existence of stealth power, it is possible to think of it not as mere societal artifice but as a natural and necessary factor innate in any intelligent power system. This signifies that stealth power is a generic kind of power within our species as a whole. Indeed, any intelligent power system that becomes visible and identifiable enough to be shot down by other intelligent power systems might be referred to as a stupid power system. Historical evidence more than suggests that stealth and power somehow go together very closely. And anyone attempting empowerment should always bear this in mind. If it is possible to suppose that stealth power is an innate factor in our species, then it is to be understood that how it is utilized on behalf of this or that constitutes issues that are clearly separate from the innate factor itself. THE MOST DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE FOUR GENERIC POWERS Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of the four generic powers so far identified is that one doesn't need to intellectually study them in a book in order to sense or intuit their presence. Indeed, even those whose awarenesses and intelligence have been grossly truncated or diminished by negative societal conditioning can still retain a good chance of sensing their presence. If this is adequately groked, then we are finally talking about awareness and intelligence rather than about intellectualisms and societal artifices. Intellectualisms and societal artifices belong to social activity which can be conditioned in various ways.
Chapter 10 ♦ Empowerment and Depowerment versus Power Games
THE IDEA of power games is a popular and standardized frame of reference, easily thought of as having relevance to empowerment.
However, the concept of power games has limited application not only with regard to empowerment, but also to what actually goes on within power structures, especially the larger societal ones. To get into this, it is first necessary to review the official definitions of GAME as found in any competent dictionary:
Please etch into memory (5) above, especially the ideas of being "given specific information" and being "allowed a choice of moves."
POWER GAMES vs NO POWER GAMES As discussed in chapter 7, there is one generic type of specific information that is hardly ever given to anyone.
NOT giving information helps ensure that no-games regarding them will come into efficient existence. In this light, definition (5) above can be slightly rephrased in order to help better grok no-games power situations:
In that sense, the OBJECTIVE of the powerful is to erase and prevent games situations from developing between them and the powerless. The implications of THIS can perhaps be thought of as a games situation between the powerful and the powerless.
Because of the foregoing, whose reality-making elements can easily be identified by anyone, it is rather certain that power structures contain both games situations AND no-games situations.
GAMES AS RACKETS Most competent dictionaries give RACKET as one of the definitions of games, but they do not elaborate upon that meaning. With regard to power games, the functional definitions of RACKET are:
The etymology of GAME is not certain, but it seems to derive, at least in part, from GAMMY, and which term is not found in most contemporary dictionaries. However, the OXFORD dictionary of the English language indicates it early referred to hunted animals and, as slang, to the smell of over-ripe dead flesh.
Dictionaries of modern slang refer to GAME as ON THE GAME, the original meaning being associated with prostitution. William Shakespeare referred, in his work TROILUS AND CRESSIDA (1606), to prostitutes as: "Set them down for sluttish spoils of opportunity, and daughters of the game."
POWER GAMES AS GAMMY POWER GAMES If one examines the general anatomy of power games, it is impossible to think that they, as a whole, can ideally be fitted into the official definitions of games, at least of the type that are played within obedience to and the limits of established rules and guidelines. Thus, while there is a widely shared perception that power games ARE games, there is nevertheless a large consensus that they tend to be Machiavellian in their working premises. MACHIAVELLIAN POWER GAMES The concept of Machiavellianism is of course drawn from the political observations of Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527). In his writings, and especially in his famous book THE PRINCE (which is still kept in print), he advocated the view that politics, from its foundations upward, is fundamentally amoral and that any means however unscrupulous can justifiably be used on behalf of the objective of achieving political power. He suggested numerous principles of conduct that could justifiably be utilized on behalf of achieving that objective.
In other of his works, however, Machiavelli also attempted to propound a general theory of politics and government that stressed the importance of uncorrupted political culture and vigorous political morality.
POWER GAMES WITH REGARD TO DEPOWERMENT Power games ultimately imply outcomes involving winners and losers.
In this sense, power games are not really linked too closely to the concept of "May The Best Man/Woman Win." Everything considered about them, such games provide equal opportunity for the worst who can also win. A full part of power games therefore requires an in-depth working knowledge regarding depowerment of others, especially if they could turn out to be contenders and opponents.
But, as has been discussed, the term DEPOWERMENT doesn't exist, does it? POWER GAMES vs POWER OBJECTIVES One of the principle reasons for discussing the more complete contexts of power games is to be able to point up that the idea of games consists of frames of reference that are probably useless in the open fields of power, of power-gaining, and of power-making All things considered, it is logical to think that power is not gained, made, or achieved merely in order to play games with it.
As a noun, an OBJECTIVE is defined as:
Given those definitions, frames of reference for games, and acquisition of objectives will not mesh very well. The concept of power games is therefore something of a ruse to socially obscure the more serious aspects of power objectives.
Chapter 11 ♦ "Rules" for Power Deployed within Powerdom
THE ASPECTS of power so far identified contribute to a mix of information bits that can help unfold a larger grasp of the nature of power per se and societal power in particular.
It is thus that many seeking empowerment try to find out what the rules of power are.
As it is, though, any given power structure is ordered principally to suit the desires and goals of the top level powerful. And it is in this sense that all power structures, large or small, are malleable artifices via which power over others can take orderly shape and be maintained – IF "the others" follow the orderly rules designed for THEM. POWER COMPONENTS AS PLASTIC AND MALLEABLE MALLEABLE is defined as:
It is worth mentioning here that the hammer is, of course, the universal symbol of force power, while images of pressure rollers have often been used to picture social conditioning. The components can also be thought of as being PLASTIC, i.e., capable of being molded or modeled, capable of being adapted, and easily bent, folded, twisted, or manipulated. Manipulation is of course the chief frame of reference for societal power itself.
THE NATURE OF RULES In order to plunge into this plastic complexity, it is advisable to point up official definitions of certain terms that have significance to the entire power puzzle. The several definitions for the term RULE as the noun establish that there are different types of rules, not all of which are consistent with each other:
Those who are naive or innocent of powerdom's internal workings might assume that such rules would be based on the first definition above.
The forth definition given above is relevant to many aspects within any power structure or organization. For example, there are usually several, or even many, power cliques and elites within any given power structure, the leaders of which establish behavioral regulations for members of their camps. DEPLOYMENT OF RULES FOR POWER It would be obvious that if rules regarding power cannot be deployed, then they consist of not much more than smoke or pillars of air.
If power is examined and studied in the open field, it is surprising to realize that most people have very little or no idea of what deployment consists of.
TO DEPLOY is taken into English from the Latin DISPLICARE which means to scatter or to display. The official English definitions are:
By its suggestive nature, deployment of power and power rules tends to be achieved via some covert method. But if power rules are to become perceptible enough so that everyone can know what they are, such rules need somehow to be overtly displayed. The term DISPLAY is also taken from the Latin DISPLICARE, but rather means to scatter in ways that are visible. A DISPLAY, then, refers to:
It turns out, based on the above discussion, that there can be (and always are) at least two major types of rules for power: Those made visible to one and all, and those cocooned in secrecy.
THE CONCEPT OF POWER-MAKING As has already been emphasized, our species, in addition to its many other remarkable attributes, is a power species.
Indeed, the first four definitions of TO MAKE are entirely relevant to power-making:
If no one ever set about manifesting-making power, then it and its resulting issues would never come up into visibility
By using power-makers as a starting point, the following five-part scenario can be unfolded regarding rules for power. This scenario can be confirmed by direct observation, and it can also be added to and enlarged by others. MAKERS OF POWER Based on the evidence, it can be supposed that power-makers are above all rules, but make the rules for all others. The only real distinction here is that visible power leaders must at least appear to follow certain rules. The invisible elite power-makers have no such need. Power-makers have no rules. They establish rules for others. PRIMARY EXECUTIVES OF POWER-MAKERS Power-makers of course need executives so as to have a cadre through which their power can be established and exercised. Here is the first realm of artificial power, in that various aspects of power are delegated to the primary executives providing that they accept, know, obey, and enforce the rules set by the power-makers. SECONDARY EXECUTIVES OF POWER-MAKERS Secondary executives of power-makers obey the primary executors, but seldom know all or even any of the rules – and, as well, might have no idea of who the power-makers actually are. The two foregoing categories usually make up much of what is referred to as the power bureaucracies of given societal power structures. YES-PEOPLE In general, yes-people respond to the secondary executives or their spokespersons. And, as can be immediately understood, yes-people obey rules as decided or dictated, but usually only those which the primary executors mean for them to understand.
ZERO-PEOPLE It is difficult to describe zero-people, because their enormous populations are not all of one piece, fabric, or pattern. It can collectively be said that they are the bottom of the line, socially subjected to trenchant formats of depowerment, and generally have not the least idea of what is going on.
POPULATIONS OF THE FIVE RULES-OF-POWER CATEGORIES For information regarding empowerment, it is important to have a general idea of the population ratios among the five foregoing categories. Such ratios of course depend on a number of factors, such as which power structure is involved, its areas of influence, and its total populations either naturally present or acquired by aggressive expansionism of the power structure. But there are some logical general rules of thumb to go by. For example, power-makers cannot really have too many primary executives, since increasing numbers of them would make overall control unpredictable. Likewise, primary executives cannot afford to encourage the presence of numerous secondary executors, which, if allowed, would increase the numbers of possible competitors for the primary executive positions. And something depends on whether the societal power structure is, for example, infused with democracy, monarchy, empire, declared authoritarianism, or open totalitarianism. Although highly generalized, the following line up of the population ratios is hypothetically logical enough.
VOLUME I - PART III ♦ THE SITUATION OF POWER PERSONAL
Chapter 12 ♦ The On-Going Dichotomy of Individual and Societal Power
THOSE WHO are clairvoyant enough can see that most individuals have more power than they manifest or actively demonstrate. Something along these lines can also be groked by intuitives, empaths, and other kinds of sensitives. There are probably numerous reasons why most individuals do not manifest or actively demonstrate their powers. Whatever the reason, and collectively speaking their empowerment "switches" have somehow been turned off, or perhaps not turned on in the first place. In general, most individuals somewhat sense this of themselves. Even if they can rationalize it away intellectually, there is always a residuum of frustration and internal after-effects that influence their behavior and their sense of themselves.
For anyone interested in doing so, this kind of thing can be observed and studied within the ranks of zero-people, many of whom can be surprisingly frank and clear in discussing it.
From talks with the societally depowered, it can gradually be realized that although zero-people can accurately grok societal depowerment in general, they cannot identify the nature of the power switches that have been turned off.
The missing factor that links this inversely shared situation has earlier been discussed in chapters 6 and 7: the total absence of an A-to-Z encyclopedia that identifies and discusses all known and suspected human powers and abilities. This absence means that there is no organized source ANYONE can consult to find out about human powers in general, so as to be able to identify this or that power faculty in oneself and in others.
THE SOCIETAL DIMINISHMENT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSONAL POWER In general, it is somewhat safe to say that two principal situations regarding power can be recognized.
It is seldom easy to discern the peripheries of the two principal situations in that the individual is always encapsulated within some kind of societal panorama. By far and large, societal contexts are seen bigger, more compelling, and thus more powerful than the majority of the individuals encapsulated within them.
The chief concern is rather focused on how power is to be distributed via a graded or class-like format. As has already been elaborated at length, the graded format is almost always pyramidal in shape and context, having a narrow top where most power is collected and a broad base where little power is permitted. Thus, the societal concept or perspective regarding power has to do with who and what is and is not to have power within the societal pyramid.
There are at least three principal fallouts from the two-part situation briefly outlined above.
THE DICHOTOMY OF IMPORTANT AND UNIMPORTANT POWER The term DICHOTOMY is defined as "a division or the process of dividing into two mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or categories." If human power per se is divided into two general categories as societal power and individual power, then they will naturally be seen as contradictory – and a power dichotomy will quickly form.
This means that individual power, which is INTERNAL and indwelling within the individual, usually cannot activate and unfold of and as itself.
The existence of the conflict between individual and societal power is amply recorded in history.
Thus, power is typically seen in an either/or kind of way – either as individual or as societal – and cognitive intelligence is thereby forced to pop back and forth between the limits of those two opposing and often contradictory options. In the larger overview of all human activities, the on-going conflicts within dichotomies remain in place until it is realized that the dichotomy itself is nothing more than two rather artificial parts of one larger thing that has made the two parts possible. In the case of the power dichotomy, the larger thing consists of human power per se, and from which both individual and societal power download.
So, a more fundamental way to think of power is not via the two-part dichotomy, but as a three-part triad diagrammed at the beginning of this chapter. DICHOTOMY CANNOT EXIST EXCEPT AS SOCIETAL ARTIFICE It now must be stipulated that two things that are downloading parts of a larger third thing CANNOT exist unless the third thing DOES exist. And discovering (or admitting) the existence of the third thing often has the effect of liberating one from the two limiting options.
THE EXISTENCE OF PER SE HUMAN POWERS The term PER SE is defined as "by, of, or in itself or oneself or themselves; intrinsic." Modern philosophers, however, have generally preferred to use the term INTRINSIC, which is more glamorous. It can be taken as referring to some kind of obscure or inscrutable metaphysical situation whose essence cannot be discovered, and so is not available to physical measurement and quantifying. None the less, INTRINSIC is a perfectly good term, and is defined as "inner, inwardly; belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing (as distinguished from its outward appearance)." As to discovering the existence of the intrinsic third thing which enables individual and societal power to download and come into conflictive existence – well, one is ultimately obliged to note two factors:
If power per se is not FIRST to be found within our species, then it will also not be found in the individual or within any societal power mish-mashes.
Chapter 13 ♦ Indigenous Depowerment and Personal Empowerment
IF ONE attempts to discuss depowerment with zero-people, it can be found that THEY, in one way or another, understand, comprehend, and grok its nature quite well. Other types of people who consider themselves above the zero-people class probably understand the implications of depowerment. But they are likely to shy away from discussing it because it is unfair, unethical, and indicative of practices characterized by cultivated deception.
So, any opening up of depowerment discussions signifies something of a dreaded horror within most societal power management systems.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HIDDEN MAP OF APPLIED DEPOWERMENT The importance of the hidden map of applied depowerment is that such map in reverse is also the hidden map of applied empowerment. Furthermore, by contemplating the ramifications of depowerment, one might eventually realize that the applied processes of depowerment more constitute the "enemy" than does power itself.
There is a very old wisdom-adage advising that if one wants to outwit an enemy, one should first get to know the enemy quite well.
And this might be the case, if, for example, seen in the contexts of complete egalitarianism.
It is possible to think that egalitarianism just MIGHT be feasible with regard to just about everything – excepting males, females, and most certainly power.
In any event, if one seeks some kind of empowerment, one is foolish not to get to know its enemies quite well, and so the wisdom-adage, dating from very ancient times, is not too platitudinal.
EXPANDING THE KNOWLEDGE SCOPE OF DE - POWER By placing the prefix De in front of the term POWER, a particular subtle concept becomes intellectually available regarding the ways we might think of power, and of those who don't have any or much of it. Indeed, the prefix DE is very serviceable in many important ways.
"DO the opposite of" also implies volitional activity on the part of those who are doing it. Causing others to do the opposite of power and empowerment is one format of this kind of volitional activity. Thus, there would be a subtle distinction between merely depriving someone of power and depowering them. To deprive one of power would mean simply taking something away. But depower would imply a change of state, a change of condition DOWN from some kind of original or innate power format. And then, EM-POWER would also involve a change of state or condition UP from its original format. The prefixes EM (and EN) are utilized to mean: to cause to be, to cause to have, to come to be, to come to have, to provide with. If we think that everyone has a potential median state or condition of power, then to depower the median state would mean utilizing active measures to drive it downward to a lower condition of functioning – while empower would mean driving the median state upward to a higher state of functioning. Thus, we can arrive at the concept of DEPOWERMENT as a slowing down or devitalizing of someone's median state of natural power potential. The ideas of low and high volume of power are also serviceable. In this opposite sense, empowerment would consist of turning up power volumes, of a speeding up or revitalizing someone's median state of natural power potential to a higher state of functioning. These subtle distinctions are important, because ahead will be presented evidence that has to do with turning up or turning down power thresholds in terms of energy and force. To energize something would of course mean pumping up its power. De-energize would mean pumping down its power. Since the term DEPOWER does not officially exist, most people seek to utilize the term DEPRIVE in its stead. However, the two terms are not synonymous because we usually know what people are being deprived of. DEPRIVE usually involves rude and crude force to take away something, either by lawful or illegal measures, by moral or immoral force, or by ethical or unethical activity. Few can mistake what deprivation consists of. But depowerment, if it is to be successful, requires more subtle, less visible factors. Few of our species like to be depowered, and most will usually resist it if they can understand what it is and what is happening to them. Thus, depowerment tactics and strategies must be quite subtle, at least when used on reasonably intelligent people – so subtle that they will not realize they have become the products of depowerment efforts. COMPETITION AS INDIGENOUS WITHIN OUR POWER SPECIES The term INDIGENOUS is taken into English from the Latin DE + GIGNERE, which meant TO BEGET.
Although not conventionally done, it is entirely proper to consider that power is an environment that one can step in and out of, be accepted into, pushed outside of, or conquered or killed within.
Our species is all too obviously exceedingly competitive. This has not gone unnoticed during the ages gone by. And so a rather generalized historical solution has been developed, one which is quite dependable. That solution is this: Competitors can of course be dealt with via force power. But the best way of dealing with ostensible competitors is to prevent them, via stealth power, from becoming competitors in the first place. By general rules of thumb, competitors need to accumulate various kinds of power in order to succeed and prevail.
And so if we can speak of indigenous power within our species, we are also obliged to think in terms of indigenous competitiveness, and then in terms of indigenous depowerment.
THE DEPOWERED ARE STILL "CARRIERS" OF POWER Hypothetically speaking, if via depowerment measures one's power volume has been turned down too low, one will be unable to sense power, or at least not very well.
The super ultimate depowerment tactic, of course, is to kill the carriers of power.
Thus, the masses of humans, all of which are carriers of power, cannot be terminated or completely done away with. So they somehow have to be rendered into stepped-down power conditions and states, the methods of which are indigenously understood. If this stepping-down is successful, then there will be plenty of the depowered to have control and authority over.
Chapter 14 ♦ Power Energies Magnified vis a vis Those Who Don't Have Power
THOSE WHO are interested in power exclusively tend to study those who manifest it, and devote no attention to those who don't.
IMITATIVE POWER The flaw consists of this: one seldom ever sees power itself. What is actually seen is the RESULT of power being produced by someone within whom power is active and manifesting It is possible to convincingly imitate the results of power and have the appearance of being powerful. But in the end this type of activity is a charade which others can easily identify as such – especially by those who do have power.
There is, of course, the old axiom of "fake it until you make it" which nervously implies that one MIGHT make it ultimately. In some cases this procedure might be temporarily useful.
Different realms of human activity can be thickly populated with those who are faking it with the prospect of eventually really achieving it.
This imitate-fake-it issue can better be understood if it is considered that valid power people comprehend that the frequency and proliferation of power conflicts must be REDUCED.
One of the first mandates of those who do gain power over others is to establish and maintain social ORDER, without which the powerful probably cannot survive very long. (It should be mentioned that establishing order should not automatically be confused with establishing justice.) A study of the distribution of active power among, for example, gangs and criminal overlords easily reveals that even those social sub-sets eventually come to realize that power conflicts have to be kept to a minimum.
THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE POWER SHOULD BE OBSERVED If one would like to have more power, to become empowered or re-empowered, then, as a first level of interest, it is not important why others have it.
To be precise, one must fix and cure the reasons why one does not have power in order to have much hope of really activating it in oneself
THE DIFFICULTY OF SEEING ONE'S OWN LACKS REGARDING NOT HAVING POWER If adequate formal studies regarding power existed, they would include guidelines not only regarding empowerment, but also reasons that result in a lack of it. As already established, such studies do not exist, and so there are no guidelines to refer to. Self-examination is quite difficult, largely because people live within their frames of references and cannot easily see beyond them.
OBSERVING THE "POWERLESS" AND THE DEPOWERED Those who don't have power are commonly referred to as "the powerless." And so those who want more power usually ignore and avoid them because of the culturally fixed idea that since the powerless ARE powerless, there is nothing to be learned from them.
But this rich resource cannot be utilized unless we begin to shift some ideas around. As already mentioned, those who don't have power are commonly be referred to as "the powerless."
If it is accepted, as it should be, that each human is also essentially a born power dynamo, then we can NOT say or think that those who don't have power are POWER-LESS. We can say that they have been DEPOWERED in some fashion, so that as natural and inherent power dynamos they have become dysfunctional regarding extending their animating forces and energies into the environments around them. The powerless are almost universally considered as deficient of power. But if it is possible to assume that powers are innate in our species, then, strictly speaking, powerlessness is the result of powers:
THE ADMITTED EXISTENCE OF POWER "POTENTIALS" In all sociological strata, at least in modern times, it is generally admitted that all individual humans possess "potentials" regarding powers of all kinds.
In a chapter ahead, human potentials will be elaborated more extensively. But here it can be indicated that the term POTENTIAL has two meanings with regard to power and empowerment. THE FIRST DEFINITION OF "POTENTIAL" The first meaning is given as something "existing in possibility, and capable of becoming and actual." In keeping with the definition above, the realm of human potential studies would of course be an arm of a larger issue of power studies, and power schools as well.
Our species likes to make visible and active everything that can be thought of. So the lack of this kind of effort regarding power potentials clearly amounts to dis- or counter-engineering – the goal of which can only be the deliberate perpetuation of the conditions and situations of powerlessness.
THE SECOND DEFINITION OF "POTENTIAL" There is a second definition of POTENTIAL that is not generally applied to the contexts of human powers and potentials in general.
The second definition is: "Any of various functions from which the intensity or the velocity at any point in a field may readily be calculated." This definition brings an energetic element into the first definition of human potentials: if they do not somehow become energized, they cannot become developed into actuality
As it stands in dictionaries, the second definition seems only to be technical. But if we change the phrase "may readily be calculated" to "may readily be sensed," then the definition can more easily be applied to human powers, the powerful, and the powerless. Certainly, the idea of energy magnified can be associated with the concept of power energized – so much so that power energized can be sensed as such.
Chapter 15 ♦ You – And Your Power
VIA THE fourteen preceding chapters, an attempt has been made to sketch out some of the aspects that constitute the bigger picture of power and empowerment.
In this sense, it is not all that unreal to establish that most societal power systems are, in some full part, rigged AGAINST empowerment and rigged FOR depowerment.
THE USELESSNESS OF SWEETNESS-AND-LIGHT EMPOWERMENT RECIPES Most books dealing with empowerment focus on the individual, and usually exclusively so. These are the "powers within you" type of book.
There are two central themes these books share.
IDENTIFYING THE SMALLEST POWER "UNIT" However, via the combined discussions in the preceding fourteen chapters, it can be deduced, without much equivocation, that the individual is the smallest power "unit" in any societal power schemata.
If the fuller panorama of societal powers is considered, there is nothing to suggest that sweetness-and-light expectations and sugar-coated clichés can be workable in the open field of power machinations of every possible kind. That field is thickly populated with lean, mean, fighting machines. None the less, this book has now arrived in the vicinity of the individual, and this chapter begins the discussion of the individual versus the societal panorama of power. THE LIFE FORCE EQUALS POWER AND EMPOWERMENT If you are among those who feel they have little or no power, you can be assured, with quite some certainty, that you do have implicit power.
That this is so is not a mere sugar-coated palliative. Rather, it is a logical extension of the notable fact that whatever else our species consists of, it is a power species possessing tremendous known powers, and probably many more that are unknown. Something may have happened to prevent, deactivate, or dwindle your powers, to break your intellectual and energetic contacts with them, to make you confused about them. But they are still innately there, awaiting a renewed activation. If you are among the living, then no matter what other conditions might be prevailing within and around you, you do have power(s). You see, life does not exist unless it is both an expression and a function of the power that makes for life in the first place. Life itself is power, is maintained by power, is enhanced and expanded by power. The considerations above do not represent merely some philosophical, metaphysical, or let's-feel-good sermonizing.
A BASIC IDEA OF POWER A little over three hundred years ago, the tremendously influential English empiricist and political philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704), published the following concept in AN ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, Vol. II, p. vii, 1690):
Locke's statement is probably one of the very few of the most fundamental statements regarding BASIC powers.
He was also saying that when you think something, again it takes power to do so. When you experience a sensation, or pause to reflect upon something you perhaps have not understood before, again it takes some kind of power to do so. And what he was also saying, but between the lines, was that it takes bio-kinetic and mental-kinetic energy to produce motion of any kind, and that the source of the energy-motion is power of some kind. Another way to look at this, one which Locke intended, was to consider that if you could not produce motion of limbs or thoughts, then you would be dead – which is to say, be energy-less, power-less. Locke's statement about power, and about getting the Idea of power, was in fact quite widespread during his times, and until some point during the late eighteenth century.
Furthermore, and although it is difficult to find comment on it today, this life force was granted a great deal of respect no matter where it was encountered. It was also feared – if it was seen not to be on one's side, so to speak. THE LOSS OF THE LIFE FORCE IDEA One of the contemporary problems regarding knowing what power consists of is that touch has been lost not only with the Idea and meaning of the indwelling life force which powers our bio-mind systems, but with concepts which would draw it to our attention. In fact, since the 1890s, the reality of the life power which fuels kinetic physical and mental motion has become so submerged that even highly educated scientists and philosophers seem to be unaware that it takes power to activate and drive them. We walk, talk, digest, excrete, think, and experience sensations all the time – without the least idea that somewhere within each of us dwells the inherent life power which makes those functions possible AS POWERS. And since there is hardly any Idea at all of the existing power within individuals, attention is turned to phenomena and activity outside of our Selves to give us our ideas of what power consists of. Since we have no notion, no Idea of our own indwelling life power(s), to get and gain power we try to emulate what we perceive to be power factors outside of us. But this represents a REVERSAL of over four thousand years of thinking regarding what power consists of. Indeed, Locke's idea regarding basic, or essential, power was not really original to him. If one studies history with an eye to discovering what past cultures thought about power, it will be found that the life force was always considered the fundamental source of all human power. All other factors which might come to represent power were thought of as extensions of the central life force power. The living biological body was considered the container, the vehicle, of the power of life force – which was why life (of any kind) was considered sacred. The only exceptions were those power-life vehicles which were enemies, and those life forms which needed to be eaten in order that the human power-energy mechanism might survive. But during the last two centuries, a gradual, but tremendous reversal of those concepts has taken place – several reasons for which will be discussed ahead. When you, today, wish to know about power and what it consists of and how to enhance it, consider the following very carefully. TWO OPTIONAL AND CONFLICTING BASIC IDEAS ABOUT POWER Do you have the following two Ideas? Do you consider that power pre-exists within you? That there is a power blue-print, a power pattern, pre-coded within you? Or do you have the following idea? Do you consider that power exists in phenomena and activities outside of you, and that you have to get into them, participate in them, perhaps take them over, in order to graft that power to yourself? Consider the two options above very carefully. Both are actually feasible, but between them is the first glimmering that can result in power recovery, power enhancement, re-empowerment, or the blossoming or unfoldment of your power, or whatever you want to call it. Real power has no names, no descriptors, except what you want to call it. You can call it Power-X, if you want to. Whatever you might like to call it, it is you, and your power. Name it what you want. To help get the Idea a little better, slowly lift you hand and arm up and down. Do this several times, and increase your focus on the kinetic motion it takes to do so.
Instead, focus on the fact that it takes some kind of activating power to do it. Focus on the power BEHIND the motion, the power that makes the motion possible.
Now, pretend your bio-mind body is dead. Then see if it is as easy to lift your hand and arm. Try to get the Idea that energy is directed power of some kind. You may see that it takes directed energy to lift and lower your hand and arm. One can be very familiar with directed energy. But one should become just as familiar with the power in us which can be directed into any energy we want. And you might want to remember something many forget all too often: all power things begin small, grow and get larger. Hardly any power manifestations begin as BIG things. The beginning of an individual's power starts with the frank admission that one DOES have it somewhere within. Power should not be considered as potentially existing, because it is actual. The power(s) of individuals may be blocked, hampered, confused, ineffective, defeated, distorted, mind-programmed into depowerment conditions. The power(s) may have been educated to non-effective levels, adulterated, intimidated, willingly or unwillingly suppressed by yourself or by others, polluted with anti-power considerations. But the power(s) exist even so. One's sense of power may even be intellectually and emotionally confused. Or it may simply be that others don't want you to manifest your power, and have taken active, preventive measures to prevent its consolidation within you. It is far more likely that most are merely mis-educated or mis-experienced regarding not only their power, but power in the circumstances and the world around them. A PERSONAL ANECDOTE Many years ago, when I was in college, I had to study German, which back then was thought of as one of the three "scientific" languages. I had decided to major in biology, and so as an English speaker, I had to minor either in French or German. My German teacher was a certain Frau Doctor May Mabel Schwender, the youngest child having twelve brothers before her. She was powerful, a wizard, and the most direct and aggressive ball-breaker I've ever encountered down until today. After some harrowing experiences with her, I made the mistake of saying that I felt powerless, at least with special reference to her ball-breaking presence. "Oh, Bosh!" she sneered. "You Americans wail and pamper yourselves too much. No one will ever GIVE you power. Take paper and pencil and list ten of the times during your miserable life you DID feel powerful. "As you remember and write down each item, beside it make a note of what happened because you were powerful at that time. When you have finished that list study it well several times. And then you dare to come here again and say you ARE powerless." I was by then almost in tears. I made as if to say something, but the Frau Doctor waved her hand. "Nein, nein, nein" (in German "No," or "enough of that shit"). So, I HAD to make that list. Yes, I could remember ten times in my youth that I had felt relatively power-full. And I could remember that the precious feeling was sunk, not by myself, but because of others or because of some kind of situation which was inimical to ME having MY powers. Since then, possibly because of the shock-value of the Frau Doctor's challenge, I have never once FELT power-less. I have felt confused about power and all its many complexities. But never power-LESS. There were to be many occasions in which I did not have power relative to others and to other situations. But power-LESS. Nein, nein, nein. And since then, among other reasons to perpetually adore her, I have been eternally grateful to that Frau Doctor Ball-Breaker. You see, she didn't recommend reading a book on empowerment. She made me consult myself. YOUR life force, or life energy power loves to have you remember that it is there. When you forget it, become out of touch with it, various kinds of depowerment can proceed accordingly.
Chapter 16 ♦ On Having a Sense of Power
IT IS fair to say that the topics discussed in this chapter might at first be a little difficult to take on board.
There are at least two principle reasons for this.
The second reason for the difficulty is that education in general teaches WHAT to think in terms of topics, subjects, assumptions, standards, and beliefs, but not HOW to examine and constructively manage and expand one's own thinking parameters THE TERM "SENSE" WITH REGARD TO POWER AND EMPOWERMENT There are several definitions for SENSE as a noun and verb. But with regard to having a sense of power, the term SENSE is used within the following meanings:
Having (or not having) a sense of power is important when it comes to understanding many things – such as the world of human affairs – but it is also important regarding desires for empowerment and increases of power.
The central difficulty needs to be openly and fairly pointed up. If individuals do have a sense of power, it is probably formulated within the contexts of their personal frames of reference.
After all, the definition of power as "power over others" clearly and literally implies power over the power of others.
Thus, the conventional dictionary definition of power as control, authority, and influence over others really does need to be amended so as to bring this hidden aspect into visibility.
But if one is to obtain power over the powers of others, including their sense of power, then logically one must also obtain power over their frames of reference. If societal and lesser formats of power structures are examined in enough detail, it become possible to discern that managers of those structures work overtime to provide and manipulate the frames of reference that others are required to adapt to.
The reason this discussion is relevant to individual empowerment is two-fold and:
The foregoing two factors might at first be somewhat difficult to completely grok because of a lack of understanding about what frames of reference actually are. FRAMES OF REFERENCE The most commonly shared understanding of FRAMES OF REFERENCE has to do with "the standards by which a person compares something in order to form an attitude or make a judgment or analysis." This idea seems perfectly efficient. But when applied to to power and to empowerment it doesn't quite do the job. One part of the difficulty has to do with the use of the words FRAME and FRAMEWORK, and both of which have several definitions. In general, a FRAME is usually thought of as something that encloses something else, such as a picture or painting, or an enclosing border. But as a verb the term also means "to formulate, shape, or construct."
FRAMEWORK refers to "a skeletal, openwork, or structural unit made for admitting, enclosing, or supporting something." FRAME OF REFERENCE is also defined as "a set or system (as of factors or ideas) serving to orient or give particular meaning."
But there is another definition for FRAME OF REFERENCE: "an arbitrary set of axes with reference to which the position or motion of something is described." An AXIS is defined as:
The foregoing definitions might at first seem unduly complicated.
It is now possible to point up that the framework kind refers to "a set or system of facts or ideas serving to orient or give particular meaning."
By comparing the two, the framework kind is implicitly more static than fluid, while the axis kind is explicitly fluid and thus vital and vitalizing. The important distinctions between them can now be elaborated as follows: FRAMEWORKS OF REFERENCES refer to sets or systems of facts or ideas serving to orient or give particular meaning WITHIN the contexts of the set or system.
AXES OF REFERENCES refer not to already proscribed and predesigned sets or systems, but to evolutionary main lines of direction, motion, growth, or extension.
Of course, the two kinds of references are not mutually exclusive, and can, as they should, be interactive.
If the foregoing is considered patiently and deeply enough, then it becomes possible to grok that established societal power structures would design and promulgate sets or systems of references for power that refer BACK only to those power structures.
This, of course, is cleverly manipulated nonsense, for the powerful are merely manifesting certain uses of power, while the elements for power itself are innate in our species and are therefore technically available to everyone. The central problem here is that there are no frames or axes of reference for power that are available to everyone. As discussed in chapter 6, there are no power schools or power studies that everyone might consult in order to develop adequate frames and axes of references regarding power.
Such an encyclopedia would of course serve as extensive frames of references, and also help orient the individual regarding WHAT powers might be developed in self.
ON HAVING A SENSE OF POWERLESSNESS Having, or gaining, a sense of power must be contrasted with its opposite – having, or adapting to, a sense of powerlessness. It is worth considering that if one feels powerless, or does not have enough active power, then the fault is not with the individual as a life force, life energy being, but with the frames of reference that being is utilizing or has become stuck with. If one is seeking empowerment, it is also worth admitting that frames of reference can be very limiting, especially if based on some kind of illusion in the first place. It can easily be observed that most people will cling to their frames of reference through thick and thin, and perhaps do so even without having a complete understanding of what their frames of reference actually consist of.
But all the evidence shows that they can be depowered, with the result that they can FEEL powerless. Depending on the circumstances in which individuals find themselves, depowerment can be partial or seemingly complete.
FEELING versus ACTUALITY OF POWERLESSNESS Feelings are an internal matter and as such they have considerable impact within the working "mechanisms" of the individual – such as the ability-mechanisms of perception, intelligence, putting things together so as to grok their whole. Thus, feelings are more intimately and immediately experienced than is perception of actuality outside of one's self. Feelings also tend to cause one, as it is commonly said, to introvert into oneself – to introvert and exist within one's local realities, the perceived scope of which is governed by one's limited frames of reference. In the early days of modern psychological discovery, it was determined that introverts usually did not manifest much that could be called power recognizable to themselves or to anyone else either.
On the other hand, extroverts tended to feel more powerful because they sought to impress themselves into happenings external to themselves, and as such were more easily recognizable to others. In a certain sense, then, the psychological as well as the energetic dynamics of introversion and extroversion were thought to be opposites of some kind, the one imploding and the other exploding. Applied depowerment tactics are apparently designed to induce power implosion – which is to say, to reverse the externalizing and exploding manifestations of power and empowerment which might occur if methods of depowerment were not applied. Put this way, applied depowerment seems silly and unworkable – because on the surface of things it is understood that most humans cannot really be controlled in such a manner, or at least for very long.
So additional factors regarding depowerment must be involved, and in such a way that they are subtle and not easily linked to depowerment environments and situations. REACTIVATING A SENSE OF LIFE ENERGIES One of the problematical factors here is that we can understand things outside of us quite well, and do so whether we are depowered or empowered. But we understand our energy-life-consciousness qualities very little. As it can be shown, the frames of reference regarding ourselves as energy-life-conscious entities are usually set up within our local environments and circumstances. And so a discussion of these is the central topic of the next chapter.
Chapter 17 ♦ Personal Power versus Local circumstances and Frames of Reference
THE PHRASE "frames of reference" is important enough to be included in many dictionaries.
FAILURE OF FRAMES OF REFERENCE REGARDING POWER AND EMPOWERMENT There are several societal reasons behind this failure. For example, the concepts of information, knowledge, facts, and realities usually take precedence over frames of reference, and so most will think in terms of those concepts.
It can also be shown that after the initial framework has been constructed and formatted, it equates to a mind-set through which any additional information, knowledge, facts, and realities are processed in a kind of closed-loop way. It is thus that frames of reference at the personal level emerge as enormously important regarding perceptions of power, personal empowerment, and any desire having to do with becoming power-active in any sphere of activity.
CONSTRUCTING AND DECONSTRUCTING FRAMES OF REFERENCE It may, by now, seem needlessly repetitive to go on so much about frames of reference. But it is quite likely that a good deal of what we can become aware or conscious of depends on having appropriate frames of reference.
If one very carefully considers the existence of frames of reference, it becomes entirely possible to think that our species has the generic faculties for constructing frames of reference, in much the same way as we have generic faculties for making and speaking thousands of different languages. But if our species possesses the innate faculties to construct frames of reference, the same faculties, when applied in the reverse, can be utilized to deconstruct them.
For example, openly or covertly deconstructing the frames of reference of others is often a very workable way of achieving control, authority, and influence over them – at least in a general perspective.
THE RELATIONSHIP OF FRAMES OF REFERENCE TO BASIC PREMISES The term PREMISE is taken from the Latin term PRAEMITTERE which means "to place something ahead of something else."
The several meanings of ANTECEDENT are:
While it is true that a basic premise can be based on facts, it is also the case that it can be based on smoke or columns of air. Even so, frames of reference can be built up around a premise thought to be basic, and which framework thereafter is assumed as giving authenticity and actual reality to the premise itself. These frames of reference might be confused or confusing, but their general authenticity is seldom inspected, while the assumed authenticity of the basic premise is hardly ever questioned. As but two examples of this kind of thing, in male-dominant societies, the basic social-conditioning premise for power was seen as an exclusively male thing, and the frames of reference built up around this premise achieved a rather enormous and fantastic architecture. But the same can be said of the ancient female-dominant societies, where power was exclusively a female thing – and in which, as of this date, the exact functions of males has never been intimately identified. In actuality, however, it is quite obvious that power falls into the hands and minds of those who have achieved excellent knowledge of the workings of stealth power. This is a sort of hidden equal opportunity kind of thing which of course applies to males and females, and could even be relevant to extraterrestrial societies elsewhere in the cosmos. FRAMES OF REFERENCE REGARDING PERSONAL POWER The fourth definition of ANTECEDENT given above refers to significant events, conditions, and traits of one's earlier life.
What comprises earlier life of each individual presents a massive and ultra-complicated scenario of different events and traits whose significance is clearly related to the local circumstances in which each individual has lived, or is living.
LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITH REGARD TO POWER AND EMPOWERMENT It is now understood quite well in various psychologies that infants and children do observe very carefully the power dynamics prevalent in their local circumstances and societies.
It is true that some individuals appear to have a broad sense of power that transcends local circumstances.
The realities people do have or acquire are initially derived from those circumstances, although the realities can be altered by education and experience of different locales and their circumstances. A good deal of rather basic mind-set programming is also derived from local circumstances one has adapted to. And so one tends to think about power as it was generally thought of by others participating and sharing in the same local circumstances. The various elements which go into the formatting of local circumstances are absorbed early in one's life, and as one grows up they more or less sink beneath the levels of active consciousness. The foregoing comments are good enough for superficial thinking. But in order to get beyond or beneath the superficial, it is necessary to examine the meanings of three terms having relevance to power and empowerment. The term LOCAL has four slightly different definitions, but each of which has relationship to empowerment:
For the purposes of this discussion, definitions (2) and (4) above can be slightly altered and combined as:
Of course, something that is limited cannot be broad or general, but the slight redundancy here is utilized to increase emphasis. What is not limited, and is broad and general, is thought of as being UNIVERSAL. This term also has four useful definitions:
The third term to be considered is UNIVERSALITY, which has three meaningful definitions:
Please note that the use of the term "power" in the third definition above IS found in most dictionaries, and is therefore not merely a convenient additive interjected by this author. (Please note that the third definition refers to "essential" powers of our species, which were defined and discussed in chapter 2.) The reason for reviewing these definitions is to point up two factors that people usually don't think about, but which are significant to power and empowerment:
The foregoing is needed in order to point up something about local circumstances that has direct importance not only to one's notions about power, but with regard to any hope for vivid empowerment. The term LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES seems automatically to be interpreted as referring exclusively to a position in physical place, or to factors that belong in or are part of it. Thus, one may physically move to this or that different locale and therein experience circumstances local to it. These circumstances may provide one with additional significant events and traits regarding power and empowerment. But there is one local circumstance that remains permanently local no matter where one goes in physical terms. Wherever one goes, one takes one's head with them, and it contains the premises and frames of reference one has regarding power, empowerment, and even depowerment.
LOCAL VERSUS UNIVERSAL CONCEPTS OF POWER From the foregoing, it is possible to intuit that as long as individuals consider power and empowerment in some kind of local way or format, including the frameworks in one's local head, their overviews of power will remain local in one way or another. Perhaps this is as it should be – if one wishes to permanently dwell within power constructs that are applicable only within local circumstances, including the local circumstances of one's own head. But as mentioned earlier, to some large degree individuals can become aware of or perceive only what they have frames of reference for.
In this sense, one can bet with some certainty that even working overtime trying to itemize one's local frames of reference regarding power and empowerment, one might never recognize the absence of more universal frames of reference. UNIVERSAL FORMATS OF POWER AND EMPOWERMENT Hypothetically speaking, then, one could achieve local power over those dwelling in the same locality or within the same localisms.
A significant empowerment objective, or method, therefore is not only to focus on and examine local frames of reference (with the hopes of improving upon them), but also ADD other frames of reference that are more universal in nature.
VOLUME I - PART IV ♦ GETTING BEYOND SOCIETAL, GROUP, AND INDIVIDUAL VERSIONS OF POWER
Chapter 18 ♦ Closed-Loop Versions of Power
IT IS quite natural to become interested in examples of power that are manifest within smaller or larger areas of activity one has access to. Various formats of power can be examined in this way, the end-point being that one will think that one then knows something about power. There is no reason not to examine various formats of power in this way. ANY knowledge acquired about power is better than not acquiring any at all. And it is certainly possible to study power manifestations within the contexts of societal, group, and individual power formats.
Even if people fail in their empowerment objectives, they nevertheless will have added frames of reference to their knowledge pools.
But there are subtle issues involved with this kind of study that are important to achieving a larger understanding about power.
But this is a situation in which the power activities within the environments more or less feed back the authenticity of the frames of reference and their working contexts.
As it is usually perceived, the principal goal of empowerment is to succeed within a specific area of activity one is interested in.
VICISSITUDES OF POWER AND EMPOWERMENT It is quite usual to construct a model-for-empowerment for the different "worlds" of activity based on what can easily be seen in some objective way.
The first of the hidden situations involved with those "worlds" is the fact that not only are they largely transitory in nature, but the personnel achieving or manifesting power within them are decidedly transitory.
There are some recognizable fall-outs of this. If, for example, one is utilizing the empowerment criteria and frames of reference of one of the transient power worlds, one can easily be not very knowledgeable with regard to other power worlds.
The foregoing observations apply to societal, group, and individual power and empowerment formats – all of which are temporary and transient to one degree or another.
VICISSITUDE refers to "the quality or state of being changeable; natural change or mutation visible in nature or in human affairs." STAYING POWER STAYING POWER can be conceptualized as "surviving power changes in an ever-changing power world." If one is utilizing power models based on any given societal, group, or individual power frames of reference, then whether one will also achieve staying power over time is at least somewhat questionable. The principal reason is that power systems are always composed human affairs, and those affairs are always undergoing change.
But stealth power devotees and functionaries are always at staying power risk because of the equally stealth power machinations of other opportunistic devotees and functionaries. Indeed, stealth power wars are usually quite nerve-racking in that regard. But it is from an in-depth examination of stealth power wars that a clue emerges regarding the nature of staying power.
One of the meanings here is that those other power factors do not need to be discussed by continuously referring back to closed-loop power situations at the societal, group, or individual.
The import of this chapter might be a little hard to grok at first reading. It may be helpful to be reminded that all visible societal power structures do not represent power itself, but are merely societal artifices via which power is distributed to the few and withheld from the many.
Chapter 19 ♦ Power - Intelligence - Smarts
A SUBTLE aspect that is embedded in social conditioning gives the teaching that the top echelons of the typical power pyramid personify power itself.
If this is accepted as the fundamental and absolutely indispensable and essential definition of power, then it becomes difficult to conceptualize anything that can transcend this unilateral teaching. There are three functional definitions of UNILATERAL:
The concept that power IS control, authority, and influence over others is actually only one side of the subject of power.
That power unilaterally is only control, authority, and influence over others is, of course, a closed-loop frame of reference, and which, via social conditioning, inspires all to think of power in no other way.
All societal and social matters considered, this closedloop framework can be made so airtight that it will escape notice that control, authority, and influence over others are merely USES of power, but not power itself.
Indeed, if the USES, as contrasted to the anatomy, of human-designed power structures are examined closely, it can be seen that they easily break apart into TWO purposes having the following priority. The FIRST purpose has to do with distributing the uses, functions, and rewards of power among those who become part of the structure.
It is now important to point up that UNLESS the distribution of the uses of power is first sorted out among the powerful, then the second purpose cannot really come into being. The SECOND purpose, of course, IS the infamous control, authority, and influence over others within the power structure entire. This includes the relatively powerless, and the functionally powerless. But it must be carried in mind that human-designed power structures are seldom called as such. Rather they tend to be referred to as "social structures," while those incorporated in them from the top to the bottom are referred to as "society." TRANSCENDING SOCIALLY CONDITIONED CONCEPTS OF POWER As has been discussed in earlier chapters, the general public is denied access to power knowledge, not only via social conditioning, but as a result of actually making such knowledge permanently unavailable.
The English language does not have an exact term for this kind of person, but German does : MACHTMENSCH.
So, in English, perhaps the closest meaning to the German might be something like power-energy-human - as contrasted to power-de-energized-human. In societal terms, it might first be thought that simply denying access to power to the members of those echelons might be a most efficient goal.
In other words, the powerless must somehow be made to FEEL powerless in some kind of way that seems logical and authentic to them, and in a way that will neutralize, and/or de-energize, any feelings of being powerful. Some examples of this might include: being born into a naturally powerless class; being socially conditioned to think of oneself as stupid and illiterate; not having enough education; not being too intelligent; not being acceptable to one's betters; being taught to respect the powerful; and so forth. Above all, the powerless must not be permitted to have any idea of what can transcend human-designed power structures – those societal artifices mistaken as power itself. In the sense of the foregoing, the ideas of power energization and de-energization begin to take on meaning, at least with regard to starting up empowerment processes within self.
Among many other possible power-energy factors, there are at least three that can be energized or de-energized. All three of them can be distinguished as characteristic of power-energized-humans, and as qualities that transcend the uses of power for purposes of control, authority, and influencing. These three factors can be identified as essential power itself, intelligence, and smarts. These three factors might also be thought of as:
It should already be obvious that these three factors can transcend the usual definitions of power uses, and that they have something to do with staying power.
And, by hypothesis at least, it could be obvious that the three factors would attract power to those in which they become energized. In chapter 9, four generic and more easily recognized kinds of power were identified. The concept of STAYING POWER was added in chapter 18.
To those five can be added:
Chapter 20 ♦ Evocative Power, Intelligence, and Smarts
IN ORDER to discuss the nature of evocative power, intelligence, and smarts, it is necessary to review a number of terms and the background basis for Intelligence Quotient (IQ) testing.
The second reason is that although human power and human intelligence have different contexts, intelligence undeniably does have something to do with power and empowerment. In that inescapable case, it is necessary to make some kind of studious attempt to expand frames of reference regarding intelligence.
EVOCATIVE POWER Words can, of course, be understood, but sometimes only in passive or dead-head kinds of ways. The terms INTELLECT and INTELLIGENCE are used all the time, but frequently in the absence of knowing their precise definitions. And their definitions bring to light other important terms. EVOCATIVE means "to call forth or up; to summon up," in ways that go beyond merely passive or so-called "intellectual understanding."
More to the point of this chapter, whatever is evocative has something to do with whatever individuals find interesting.
SMARTS AND SMART POWER Any discussion about the nature of intelligence and its many confusing factors is surrounded by many complicated and misleading frames of reference.
In this case, it is logical that the powerful must have control, authority, and influence not only over the intelligence of the others, but over how misunderstandings about intelligence should be engineered.
In societal terms, the exact nature of intelligence has always undergone massive social attention, one of the results being that it is NOT understood very well.
Thus, in order to temporarily side-step the possible confusions surrounding intelligence, it is the better part of valor to first discuss a topic closely related to it. This is the topic of SMARTS, and it is one that is not encumbered by confusions – and most realize it is entirely relevant to achieving power. THE EVOCATIVE NATURE OF SMARTS In its first official definition as a verb, TO SMART generally has to do with "pain, grief or remorse."
The definition of SMART as an adjective, however, is given as: "marked by often sharp forceful activity or vigorous strength."
Most dictionaries will go on to define, for example, SMART MONEY – this kind of money having an association with inside information or experience.
It seems that the essence of SMARTS being used in those ways has to do with knowing, taking advantage of, or becoming affiliated to something BEFORE it becomes more broadly known.
As a term used in the sense of the above, SMARTS is at least partially slang. Dictionaries of slang establish something that official dictionaries do not: that SMARTS is some kind of combination of "intelligence, cleverness, and acumen." ACUMEN POWER One can immediately recognize that cleverness has something to do with power and empowerment. But it is via the word ACUMEN that one hits deeper paydirt. ACUMEN usually has only one definition which is given as "keenness of perception, discernment, or discrimination, especially in practical matters." Given as a synonym for acumen is DISCERNMENT and which is defined as:
Voila! SMARTS is something like keenness of insight, based on the extent of one's active perception faculties, combined with intelligence, cleverness, and acumen. (Please note that the foregoing is a good example of the advisability of tracking down the meaning of words.) STREET SMARTS One of the reasons for having made the above trek into the definitions of smarts is to bring into view two factors that are relevant to the topics of this chapter:
An observable distinction here is that smarts is not measured by IQ testing, and that IQ testing that measures intelligence probably does not measure SQ (smarts quotient).
KEENNESS-OF-INSIGHT POWERS A problem with groking the nature of smarts has to do with comprehending the meaning of keenness of insight. The official definitions of INSIGHT are amazing. They are given as (get this):
As one of its definitions, APPREHEND means "to recognize the meaning of." i.e., NOT the facts of, but the meaning of them. The definitions of KEEN (as in "keen insight") refer to:
As an aside, it is worthwhile at this keen point to suggest that all one has to do to depower others is to reduce the scope of their perceptions. SMART INTELLECT, SMART INTELLIGENCE With the foregoing definitions in hand, one is now prepared to examine not just intelligence per se, but smart intelligence and smart intellect. Here one has to consider the possibility that there is a difference between intellect and smart intellect, or between intelligence and smart intelligence.
If one thinks about it, cleverness, alertness, quick-wittedness, keenness, and special knowing or special awareness are all elements of street smarts, and in almost the same way that they are elements of smart money, smart technology, smart power, etc. If one considers the nature of street smarts carefully enough, it can be seen that there is a considerable difference between intellect and smart intellect. Intellect would be, well, just intellect. Street smarts intellect would have the attributes of sharp, forceful activity or vigorous strength. And as already mentioned, sharp, forceful activity or vigorous strength can easily be accepted as one of the essential definitions of power that can download into numerous manifestations and uses. It therefore stands to reason that the down-sizing or lack of forceful activity or vigorous strength can just as easily be seen as a condition of depowerment or powerlessness. And indeed, the up-grading or down-sizing of perceptions, awareness, insight, acumen, intelligence, and smarts, etc., have direct reference to empowerment and depowerment. CONFUSIONS SURROUNDING THE NATURE OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLECT If it can be thought that intelligence has some important connection to power and empowerment, then exact knowledge regarding the nature of intelligence must be denied to the powerless masses.
The ancient Romans had a great metaphor for those who spread beguiling confusions: they were called smoke vendors who "sold" smoke to innocent and not-so-innocent intellects.
Of course, the almost total absence of accessible knowledge about power and empowerment makes it quite easy to detach information about intelligence from knowledge about power.
As everyone knows, at least in part, research on the topic of intelligence received enormous visibility during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Based on the sum of that research (which, all things considered, is impressive), it would seem that intelligence could be energetically nurtured on a broad societal basis, and in growth-oriented ways.
As it has turned out, though, and as other writers have pointed up, extremely little along such lines has come to be.
Intelligence, like power, wealth, control, and dominion, is a precious thing-commodity-possession.
A study of most past societal power structures reveals that all of them have somehow had to deal with this pregnant situation – in that the existence of intelligence cannot be kept perpetually hidden within an intelligent species. The most infamous societal way to manage this was simply to keep the masses illiterate – the acquisition of literacy being, of course, the enormously powerful growth hormone that evokes and activates increasingly greater levels of intelligence. The other most infamous way was to establish class systems in which only the intelligence among high power orders was of importance. This method is still being utilized, but in neo-formats based in desensitizing the powerless masses to the evocative nature of knowing TO MUCH about intelligence. THE STRANGE STORY OF IQ TESTING The advent of the modernist scientific-technological age brought about the need for general literacy among the masses in order to open up a rather extensive resource of competent workers. This required a limited activation of intelligence among those workers. Thus arose the problem of how to activate intelligence but to keep it limited so as not to empower too much. One feasible way of accomplishing this admittedly delicate matter was to openly admit that all humans had intelligence, but most of them did not have ENOUGH of it to matter. It is now necessary to labor through the history of IQ testing, short and concise versions of which can be found in most competent encyclopedias.
For starters, the encyclopedia establishes a general information set for intelligence.
Please note the references to "potential intelligence" and what may or may not be involved "in determining the extent of its expression." Also note the omission of the idea of nurturing potential intelligence.
The encyclopedia now continues with a synopsis of the history of IQ testing, beginning when Binet and Theodore Simon pioneered the first modern intelligence test in 1905, which was used to identify retarded children in the French school system. Subsequent developments in such testing are noted, such as the Otis Group Intelligence Scale, and those kinds of IQ tests that could be administered to economically and quickly to large numbers in schools and industry. Such tests
The encyclopedia goes on to state that "There has been a decline in interest in pure intelligence tests since the 1920s (not exactly true), and a corresponding increase in the number of mental tests that measure special aptitudes and personality factors." As the encyclopedia established, the IQ tests opened the way for classifying intelligence in terms of a standardized measure.
Depending on which IQ test is being used, the average, normal mean turned out to range between 95 and 110 while an IQ test score of 133 was relatively high. An IQ "score" at about 133 or above was thought to imply potential genius of some kind. FIVE DEPOWERING DIFFICULTIES REGARDING INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS One of the first difficulties with the IQ thing is its supposed relationship to normalcy, or, as it was often put, to the social norm. As judged against the typical Bell curve, the social norm comprises approximately 80 percent of the society involved. Thus, in the IQ frame of reference, 80 percent of the social norm reflected IQ scores of about 100.
THIS established that the societal norm consisted of humans that had some intelligence, but not enough of it to enable their escape from the relatively powerless norm into more elevated arenas of activity above the norm.
The second difficulty: While some researchers of intelligence eventually shifted from IQ research into subcategories of intelligence (such as specific aptitudes and personality factors), almost all of the entire planetary cultures of the twentieth century came to accept that one's IQ was all the intelligence one could hope to have.
The third difficulty: As stated in the COLUMBIA ENCYCLOPEDIA, "considerable evidence suggests that intelligence is an attribute of the entire personality that cannot be measured adequately in isolation." If that is the case, which it is, then it takes a rather gigantic leap of rather unfounded faith in order to STANDARDIZE ratios of intelligence via so-called standard IQ testing. This is almost the same as saying that intelligence is probably not what you think it is, but standardize it anyway.
The fourth difficulty, which should be recognizable by now, is that one's so-called IQ score is merely a statistical result of a given test with a given individual in a given environment with given expectations of those conducting the test. In notable fact, different kinds of IQ tests often reveal different IQ scores. The fifth difficulty is perhaps the worst of all. The term INTELLIGENCE is used all of the time. But great numbers of those using it have never studied its several meanings as established in dictionaries. STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS OF INTELLIGENCE Most dictionaries will define INTELLIGENCE as:
The same dictionaries will usually define INTELLIGENT in a somewhat different way, especially when extended through synonyms, and which differences are entirely salient to having or achieving power and activating empowerment:
SYNONYMS: ALERT – stresses quickness in perceiving and understanding: [Likewise, alert is a empowerment function.] QUICK-WITTED - implying promptness in finding answers in debate or in devising expedients in moments of danger or challenge; [Likewise an empowerment function.] KNOWING - implying the possession of special knowledge which may often connote sophistication, secretiveness, or cynicism; [or, it might be added, special smart-like faculties not measured by standard IQ tests, such as keen insight, and fundamental forms of intuition.] The synonyms for INTELLIGENT listed above are suggestive of functions of intelligence. Those functions can be found in individuals just about anywhere, whether they test at low or high IQ status. As indicated above, if they are considered carefully, the synonyms for INTELLIGENT are entirely suggestive of fundamental empowerment processes DISSECTING THE PSYCHOLOGY DEFINITION OF INTELLIGENCE The definition of intelligence established in psychology has already been noted. But it is given here once more, and for two reasons that will shortly become obvious.
THE FIRST FAILURE OF THE PSYCHOLOGY DEFINITION At first take, this definition seems right on the mark, and will remain that way – until, or if and when, one realizes that it DOES NOT define intelligence. And indeed, it cannot – because the same psychology discipline which offered up that definition also is on record as admitting to the fact that:
Indeed, the psychology definition above identifies not intelligence per se, but merely provides a short list of what intelligence can LEARN. The psychological definition is thus referring to learned skills, or to categories of performance, rather than intelligence per se. Indeed, intelligence per se may have many innate categories that have not become activated. With the possible exception of storing and retrieving information, all of the other items on the list are the result of learning on top of innate intelligence.
The faculties for these abilities may be innate in all individuals, but their expression must arise via tutoring, encouragement, and nurturing. IQ tests based on this definition (as most have been) therefore mostly reflect what the tested has learned. Therefore, such tests do not circumscribe the complete potential panorama of intelligence. As but one example, the attributes of SMARTS, such as keen insight, cleverness, and acumen, are not included in IQ tests. THE SECOND FAILURE OF THE PSYCHOLOGY DEFINITION The second failure of the psychology definition may not ever become visible unless it is pointed up. The definition states that intelligence is "the general mental ability involved in…" etc. Please note that the word "ability" is given in the singular – the implication of which is that intelligence is being conceptualized as ONE SINGLE given thing. Well, in that "The concept of intelligence has proved to be so elusive…" etc., how, then, is it known that intelligence is one, single given thing? This definition is somewhat ridiculous – especially in that even IQ tests DO NOT test for a single, given thing.
The other option is to wonder if intelligence is not a single thing, but perhaps a series of separate KINDS of intelligences, each of which has a particular sphere of activity.
Chapter 21 ♦ The Intelligences and the Innate Potentials
THE FUNCTION of this chapter is to discuss the probable existence of multiple intelligences in order to begin discussing the existence of multiple innate potentials having to do with power and empowerment. But it is first necessary to have a definition of INTELLIGENCE which gives credible support to the discussions.
As it turns out, there is no need to introduce imagination at all – because the original English-language definitions of INTELLIGENCE not only have a consensus history, but are pertinent and to the point.
The basic distinction between the original and the modern definitions is that the original ones are evocative of empowerment, whereas the modern ones more or less refer only to a rather limited list of skills that can be learned. If ever there was a big payoff regarding the archaeology of nomenclature, this is certainly an example. THE ORIGINAL ENGLISH DEFINITIONS OF INTELLIGENCE According to the Oxford Dictionary of the English language, the term INTELLIGENCE was taken from Latin. It appeared at about 1390, and was given the short and simple definition of "the faculty of understanding." The essential definition of FACULTY was "the power of doing anything."
Taken from the Latin SAGIRE (to perceive keenly), the nine original English definitions for SAGACITY were given as:
Somewhat in contrast to the original nine definitions, the modern definitions of SAGACITY are given as:
Why the first definition is considered obsolete in modernist terms is something of a wonderment, since the effect is to eliminate "keen sense perceptions" as an important aspect of understanding. A careful reading of the OXFORD definitions of intelligence and intelligent reveals no reference to skill or to skills per se. It would be obvious, however, that keen understanding would be necessary in order to proficiently develop given skills in different categories of learned activity or performance. It seems that the term SKILL was not given as one of the definitions of INTELLIGENCE until it appeared in Noah Webster's original 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
It is also interesting to note that sagacity as keenness of smell was introduced at about 1607 into English from the French term SAGACE, which refers to "Acute in perception, especially by the sense of smell."
This definition was quickly converted to slang usage - i.e., smelly, something that stinks or smells. Indeed, as Shakespeare noted "Something stinks in the state of Denmark."
RECONSTRUCTING THE ORIGINAL ENGLISH DEFINITIONS OF INTELLIGENCE Since modernist definitions of INTELLIGENCE do not at all INCLUDE the essences of its original definitions, the meaning is that the original definitions have been deconstructed and replaced. If the original definitions are reconstructed one finds that the definition of INTELLIGENCE at the beginning of the European Renaissance might read something like the following:
For a necessary and ready comparison, it is necessary to restate the modern psychology definition of intelligence, since this is the one that has had the most "reality" during modernist times :
At first take, this modern definition seems to cover just about everything necessary to describe intelligence and say that it exists as such.
The modernist psychological definition more or less makes for a rather short list of PASSIVE skills that can be acquired and perfected by learning processes.
If examined carefully and thoughtfully, the original definitions are referring to ACTIVE categories of understanding that are realizable via acute perceiving and keen, penetrating, shrewd, sound judgment, and sagacity.
THE POSSIBILITY OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES As was discussed in chapter 20, there is an idea about intelligence which has been taken so much for granted that its authenticity is seldom inspected or questioned.
As a result of this unexamined idea, it has been necessary to fit a rather vast number of human qualities into this single intelligence unit. Not all of those qualities fit too well into the single unit. And so three debates have arisen among researchers.
For the purposes of the discussions in this book, it is generally accepted that different kinds, types, or categories of power exist.
It is certainly clear enough that there are different kinds of innate potentials within human systems, and that some or many of such potentials never become activated.
But by observation, this is not what happens in real life. And indeed, even IQ tests address different categories of intelligence. So the idea of different categories of intelligence is implicit in such testing. SPECTRUMS OF POWERS AND INTELLIGENCES It is probably not really necessary to deal with the idea of multiple intelligences, but it is necessary to think in terms of spectrums of powers and intelligences. A SPECTRUM is thought of as "an array of components separated and arranged in order of some varying characteristic."
Power can certainly be thought of as a spectrum, if only because there is a sequence or range of it beginning with Zero Power, or even Minus Zero Power, and then ranging along in a sequence that might culminate with, say, Plus Power One Thousand. If power can be thought of as a spectrum of many degrees and variations, then it is more or less necessary to think of intelligence in the same way.
In any event, spectrums have multiples of components, and it is this frame of reference that permits the gradual construction of an empowering overview into the nature of innate potentials.
It is possible to rephrase the foregoing paragraph as follows: It would be clear that within such a spectrum, some of the components might be powered-up, while others of them might not be, in which case they can be described as powered-down, depowered, or deprived of empowering energy. The spectrum frame of reference can indeed be applied to just about anything which is made up of a series of slightly different or greatly different components that can be identified because of some varying characteristics between them. Within the contexts of this book, this includes:
Chapter 22 ♦ Two Pro-Active Vehicles of Power: Will and Dynamism
AS THEY have become established during the modernist decades, the conventional concepts pertaining to the nature of human will and will power seem clear-cut enough.
THE DISARMING OF WILL AND WILL POWER There are two broad results of this. First, it tends to make will and will power relatively harmless in ways that are not easily recognizable.
THE SOCIETAL PROBLEM OF WILL AND WILL POWER An obvious reason behind this disarming is that any given societal power structure cannot really tolerate too much real will and will power emerging among the masses of individuals. Those masses are supposed to be subservient to the power structure, preferably throughout their subservient lives.
Indeed, will and will power can easily be thought of as the top of the line of power – and few can succeed without them.
The history of the debates and discourses regarding will and will power is exceedingly long and involved, and even a synopsis of it would take many pages.
CLUES TO THE PAST SIGNIFICANCE OF WILL AND WILL POWER Prior to what became known as the Modern Age, the topics of will and will power had always been of enormous societal and individual interest.
The OXFORD dictionary of the English language contains twenty-four major definitions for WILL as a noun, and fifty-three for it as a verb. This makes a total of seventy-seven definitions, each of which is supported by several identified nuances.
During the middle of the nineteenth century, however, interest in the nature of will began a steep decline, and by the middle of the twentieth century investigative interest in the nature of will had almost disappeared.
In the traditional social class systems, only the will and will power of the ruling orders mattered. There was usually no upward social climbing permitted, and such was often overtly forbidden under threat of condign or simply summary punishment.
The wide-spread rise of egalitarian social systems during the nineteenth century of course dissolved the many social class barriers that had long prevailed in the pyramidal power systems of the past.
POWER VS EGALITARIANISM Control, authority, and influence (i.e., power) over others is not exactly consistent with the egalitarian hypothesis.
Issues of will and will power also complicate the egalitarian hypothesis itself. Many questions can be pondered. For example, can will and will power be thought of as egalitarian or egalitarian-making?
The issues of will and will power are thus rife with problems for the powerful and for the scope of egalitarianism. Thus, in both cases, one way of disarming the issues is to disarm the definitions of WILL and WILL POWER by negating their older and precise pro-active meanings and then substituting ambiguous meanings that flatter hypothetical egalitarianism.
One can now wonder if this kind of thing has ACTUALLY been pulled off in any all-encompassing socio-cultural sense.
HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY DEFINITIONS OF "WILL" During most of the twentieth century, the conventional definition of will was:
For starters, if one thinks that desire, wish, inclination, or even choice, etc., are synonymous with will, then one might as well think that water flows uphill.
In English, three of the more basic and essential definitions first appeared at about 900 A.D., the first of which is NOT found in contemporary dictionaries:
For the term VOLITION, most modern dictionaries give the definition of: "The act of making a choice or decision." In about 1250 A.D., however, the term VOLITIONS (in the plural) had to do with "faculties of resoluteness and resolute determination," which had the characteristic of self-manifesting. At about 1738, VOLITION was being defined as "The power or faculty of willing." At about 1836, VOLITIONAL was being defined as:
Now comes a mix-up. American dictionaries indicate that VOLITION is derived from the Latin VOL + ITIO, meaning to will or wish. But the more authoritative OXFORD dictionary of the English language indicates that VOLITION came into English not from the Latin VOL, but from the French VOL.
The foregoing is not merely a splitting of nomenclature hairs, because the concepts of to wish, desire, to be inclined, etc., can be seen as somewhat passive against VOL which means to fly, to be active or motional. In the sciences, if not in American dictionaries, VOLITION is closely connected to motion, as in the cases of VOLATILE and VOLTAGE. In psychiatry, VOLITION is associated with "significant and relevant impulses." (Note: Psychiatric dictionaries, also refer to "derailment of impulses," and to "derailment of thoughts," examples of which can be observed on a daily basis.) So, apparently the British English definitions of VOLITION (energetic, motional) have, in American English, been derailed to mean "wish or desire" and which often get not much beyond mere wishing or desiring. As a test of imagining-power here, one might wonder what will or volition would be if they DID NOT encompass some kind of motional activity or energy.
If causativeness is functionally linked to will and will power, it could be thought that interest in the powerful is great not because of who or what they are, but because they seem to cause stuff to happen. Obversely, interest in the powerless and the depowered is very minimal because they are, so to speak, cause-less. There are many threads of thinking that can emerge from the foregoing considerations.
There is a time-worn phrase along these lines that is familiar around the planet: "I can't get anything going." If true, this is a condition of absent causativeness, which is interpreted as feeling powerless. As described in chapter 21, it is quite possible to think that one can innately have a great number of powers, intelligences, and capacities, etc. But if they are not active, or have been depowered by socio-cultural conditioning, then cause-lessness can be the result. One of the central considerations of empowerment is to obtain some idea of what is active and what is not - not only with regard to self, but to everything within the parameters of one's experiencing thresholds. DYNAMIKOS If one is into the archaeology of words, it can be something of a shock to discover that the Greek term DYNAMIKOS means powerful in that language, and that DYNAMIS means power.
It is clear that the English term DYNAMIC is derived from the Greek terms, and so it is something of a second shock to discover that the meanings of powerful and power do NOT appear in the English definitions. Instead, the English definitions are given as:
Technically speaking, the foregoing are (or should be) the essential definitions of will and will power. And with this, it can be pointed up that if there was ever a case for deconditioning empowerment via language that everyone uses, this is certainly a rather clear-cut example of it. If this at first is somewhat hard to grok, consider the implications of the following three-step depowerment process:
Everyone has wishes, desires, dispositions, passions, inclinations, appetites, choices, determination, etc. And if those are the definitions of will, then everyone should have will and the rewards of it.
A SUGGESTED RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ESSENTIAL DEFINITION OF "WILL" As noted earlier, the original definition in English of WILL was: "The movement or attitude of mind which is directed with conscious intention to, and which issues immediately in, some action physical or mental."
VOLUME I - PART V ♦ SUBTLE CONTEXTS RELATING TO EMPOWERMENT
Chapter 23 ♦ Subtle Distinctions between Unfoldment and Development
THERE ARE very many distinctions between power that is obvious and power that is subtle.
Force power is an example of obvious power. But those achieving power by force usually end up being managed, used, or disposed of by those who are expert in techniques of subtle power. Subtle power is, of course, an adjunct of stealth power, and which in turn is the workhorse of secret power. There is little doubt that societal power as extensive control, authority, and influence over others benefits very much by keeping attention focused on obvious power, while at the same time preventing general awareness about the nature of subtle, stealth, and secret powers. One of the subtle "messages" downloading from the above is that if one attempts empowerment only within the visible contexts of obvious power, then those efforts can easily fizzle out along the rocky road ahead.
SUBTLE POWER AND SUBTLE POWER CONTEXTS There are many misunderstandings regarding the nature of the word SUBTLE, the actual definitions of which are quite surprising, especially with respect to power and empowerment. On average, this term is used in its depowering modernist meaning of "a fine distinction," and so the first English definitions are given as "delicate, refined."
There are two "messages" to be groked via the subsidiary definitions of SUBTLE.
The term CONTEXT has been used in the paragraph above, and elsewhere in this book. Its English meaning is given as "the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light upon its meaning."
However, the English term is again taken from Latin, in this case from COM + TEXERE, meaning "to coherently weave together by connection." By the foregoing discussions, it is now at least somewhat possible to grok or intuit the distinctions between the two categories of easily identifiable gross power entities and hard to identify subtle power webs.
SEPARATING THE SUBTLE CONTEXTS OF DEVELOPMENT AND UNFOLDMENT One of the first areas that can be examined along these lines involves the important subtle distinctions between unfoldment and development, both of which seem similar enough, but each of which consists of two entirely different kinds of processes.
The principal definition of to DEVELOP (hence DEVELOPMENT) is given as: "To set forth or make clear by degrees or in detail; to EXPOUND." The principal definition of UNFOLD (hence UNFOLDMENT) is given as: "To open the folds of, to spread out; to EXPAND." It can be seen right away that to expound and to expand are not the same thing, and that entirely different processes are involved.
However, those aspiring toward empowerment are probably doing so based on some sense of powerlessness or depowerment within which their power(s) have undergone contraction, shrinkage, or constriction, or have become in-folded, as it were.
One of the difficulties involved here, is that the concept of development clearly refers to making something visible in the outer worlds, while the concept of unfoldment refers to opening up and expanding something that exists within so that it can become visible in the outer worlds.
One of the central ideas at work within the concept of development had to do (and still does) with inventing or innovating something that did not exist before, and set it forth by degrees and in detail so that it became amenable to methodological use and, usually, economic growth. INNOVATE means "to introduce as if new," the term being taken from the Latin IN + NOVIS meaning "new."
This a concept quite different from unfolding what is already there. DEFINITIONS OF UNFOLDMENT It is via the foregoing discussion that we finally come to the definitions of UNFOLDMENT.
It is defined as:
But the verb UNFOLD has never been converted into noun forms – such as UNFOLDMENT, and which would mean the state or condition of being unfolded, opened, expanded, blossomed, etc. In this sense, the processes of de-powerment would have something to do with preventing unfoldment of innate powers naturally existing. UNFOLDMENT AS A PRINCIPLE Strictly speaking, the term UNFOLDMENT has reference to a principle rather than a concept or idea, and this should be understood so as to better grok the many implications of unfoldment. The term PRINCIPLE is taken from the Latin PRINCIPIUM meaning "at the beginning" or "first." The English definitions are given as:
Ideas or concepts may be constructed with relationship to a comprehensive or fundamental principle. But unless the ideas or concepts are identical to the principle, then at best they are but artificial devices merely juxtaposed to the principle. As seen in the definitions above, a principle also refers to an underlying faculty or endowment.
THE SIGNIFICANCE TO POWER OF EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION Most can easily grasp the significance of expansion and contraction regarding power and empowerment.
If one feels powerless, then one's sense of power has diminished and contracted – has in-folded.
In this sense, the results will consist of an opening-up or a closing-down of one's actual power factors. However, the in-folding of one's power factors DOES NOT MEAN that those factors have permanently been deconstructed.
THE CONCEPT OF TRIGGER POWER As discussed earlier, the term TRIGGER refers to "a stimulus that initiates a process of some kind."
It is fair to mention right away that processes can lead to destructive as well as constructive results.
Indeed, knowledge about innate human processes of any kind tends to be considered a competitive and proprietary affair, simply because that knowledge has a great deal to do with accumulating and accessing power.
If one is talking about processes needed to bake a cake, or even the processes of building computers, then there probably isn't too much secrecy involved.
The intellectual fogs are of course subtly established to derail and prevent empowering impulses not only from unfolding to bigger and better results, but to disarm any knowledge that might trigger the impulses in the first place. The idea of unfoldment is more at home in Asia than in the European-influenced West where knowledge of unfoldment is culturally avoided.
With the exception of the ancient Greeks (whose power structures at least encouraged philosophical unfoldment), the Western ideas of the mind held that it was something to be educationally programmed with whatever information sets were seen as desirable by the societal programmers. This should also be stated as seen as desirable to the societal programmers themselves.
The idea that the human mind ITSELF and its innate powers should be unfolded was unthinkable – if only because an unfolded mind could probably out-think the parameters of the social conditioning.
Chapter 24 ♦ The Direct Connection to Power of Significance and Insignificance
IT IS possible by now to GROK that power is not a single thing-in-itself, but is composed of a number of aspects, factors, elements, etc.
As might be awkwardly put, discovering that power is "numerous" quite clearly gives substance to the ancient saying that it has a thousand faces.
However, in addition to the most visible aspects of power, there exist various inscrutable and enigmatic factors that are very difficult to identify, especially if one has no clue that they exist in the first place.
As discussed in the foregoing chapter, one such aspect involves the process principles of out-foldment (empowerment, growth) and in-foldment (depowerment, withering).
A CENTRAL, ENIGMATIC, BUT AMAZING THING ABOUT POWER One of the most central problems about power has to do with why it collects around some life factors or situations but not others.
Indeed, it is easy enough to observe that certain things become empowered while others are deprived of power. This can lead to all sorts of amazement – depending, of course, on the contents and extent of one's frames of reference. As but a few examples, power can collect around some, but not all, versions of stupidity, short-sightedness, and even around complete nonsense. Conversely, and more often, power does NOT collect around some, or even many, versions of demonstrated intelligence, far-sightedness, and complete sense-making. Power can also collect around, or flow toward, something that has no confirmed reality via proof of authenticity – such as many ideas, theories, and hypotheses. Conversely, power often does not collect around what DOES have confirmed reality via proof of authenticity. Finally, power can collect within scenarios which are entirely unworkable via proven and demonstrated fact, and fail to collect within scenarios that are demonstrated to be workable. One of the major results of all this is that "power is where you find it, but not hardly ever where you might expect it to be." IS POWER ALWAYS RELATIVE TO SOMETHING ELSE? The foregoing discussions somewhat establish that power is not a thing-in-itself, but is relative to something else
RELATIVE refers to those instances of "a thing having a relation to, a connection with, or a necessary dependence upon another thing." RELATIVISM is defined as "a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing." This general definition can of course be applied to individual minds. RELATIVITY refers to "the state of being dependent for existence on or determined in nature, value, or quality by relation to something else." And as has earlier been discussed, if there was nothing to have power over, or in respect to, then it would be difficult either to have or identify power.
One way of enlarging upon this is to image a great void or vacuum having nothing in it except power-as-itself.
It can readily be observed that power does not collect around ALL things, whatever they may consist of, but only around SOME things. And after a while, power may uncollect from those things and collect to other things that had no power before. AN INTRODUCTION TO SIGNIFICANCE AND INSIGNIFICANCE So why does power accumulate around certain things, but not others? To begin constructing answers to this, it is first necessary to examine the nature of significance and insignificance. And in order to undertake this examination, it is useful to consider the descriptive analogy of a mighty and powerful storm beginning with a small and insignificant eddy of air at some distant place no one knows where. At that distant place there would be millions of small air eddies. And so it is something of a question regarding WHY one of them should collect additional forces to it, with the whole then turning into a mighty, powerful gale force. All small eddies of air are insignificant at first, and most of them don't turn into anything of extraordinary power or force that is difficult to withstand. The foregoing analogy makes it possible to realize something about power that is usually not clearly pointed out.
We usually accept something as HAVING power when it is difficult to withstand, or when we can't do anything about it. Most of us don't think we have to deal with whatever seems insignificant and so we usually ignore whatever it is.
That subtle problem is sort of mind-bending, and is as follows: It is not unusual to find that insignificance is being assigned to things that are not insignificant; and conversely, that significance is being assigned to things that are not significant.
This is to say that attributing significance and insignificance to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is merely a vicissitude of the human mind always busy thinking this way and that about whatever. At first take, these considerations could seem merely superficial and uninteresting. And so their thunderous significance to power in any of its thousand aspects might not yet be apparent.
CONFUSIONS REGARDING THE DEFINITIONS OF IMPORTANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE Although the English terms IMPORTANCE and SIGNIFICANCE are used as synonyms, there is an essential and crucial nuance between them which clearly establishes that they should not be thought of as synonymous. IMPORTANCE is an extension of IMPORT, the principal meaning of which is "to bear or convey as meaning." IMPORTANCE thus "implies the power of influencing, or the quality of having evident value, either generally or in a particular relation, and often by merely existing." In contrast, SIGNIFICANCE is an extension of SIGNIFY, the principle (and original) meaning of which is "to betoken, foreshadow, or indicate as something to take place." In other words, a signification is a PORTENT, the meaning of which is "something that foreshadows a coming event; an omen; prophetic indication or significance." Strictly speaking, then, IMPORTANCE can bear, carry, or convey meaning. But significance PORTENDS something. One of the principal reasons that the definitions of the two terms have been collapsed into each other is that foreshadowing, omens, and prophetic indications have had a lot of bad press during the modernist period of our present civilizations. The foregoing discussions do not merely represent terminology hair splitting, largely because innate in our species are powers having to do with sensing and identifying factors that foreshadow this or that. Indeed, no species could be thought of as possessing high intelligence unless it innately contained faculties for recognizing, to one degree or other, what's going to happen. Moreover, failure to sense what's going to happen can be thought of as one of the definitions of stupidity – i.e., "slow of mind, unthinking, dulled in feeling or sensation, benumbed, sense-less." And here it MUST be mentioned that a large part of getting and maintaining power is based on knowing what's going to happen, and in fact such is almost as precious as power itself.
Taking this into consideration, power consists not only of control, authority, and influence over others, but also of artful controlling and concealing foreknowledge of what's going to happen.
One of the possible reasons why ideas of importance (meaning) and significance (portending) have become collapsed into each other is that while it may be OK to find out what things mean, it is NOT okay to find out what they portend. That NOT OKAY aspect, of course, portends gaining empowerment and power. THE MOST SUBTLE ASPECT OF SIGNIFICANCE There is a particular quirk regarding the relationship of significance (as defined above) to power and empowerment.
Actually speaking, though, meaning has to become understood before anyone can say it has been discovered. And many can read meanings from some information source, but not actually understand them.
THE COMPLEXITIES OF ATTRIBUTING SIGNIFICANCE TO SOMETHING Something along similar lines can be said when it comes to the matter of attributing significance.
This complexity more than suggests that meaning and significance are:
So one can grok that attributing significance with regard to power and empowerment is a rather complicated affair, because the attributing can consist only of thinking. And now comes the really strange and astonishing aspect about this.
Admittedly, those two factors constitute something of a mind-bender, but nevertheless they CAN readily be observed as such if one patiently looks around within human activities. Somewhat in stark contrast, if people think that something has meaning/importance, then interest may collect around it, but not power or empowerment. Power and empowerment will not begin to collect around meaning and/or importance unless SOME people also assign some kind of significance to it. The whole of this discussion may by now have created something of a swirl in one's head and synapses.
The quirk that has been introduced in the foregoing discussions involves two factors:
BUT!
From this it can be deduced that the management and manipulation of significance, whether real or imagined, is a full aspect of all power games, access to power, power acquisition, power positioning, and maintenance of power. THIS becomes fully understandable in that the insignificant is, well, insignificant, and so whatever it consists of does not stand a chance in any power or empowerment context. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THINKING THAT SOMETHING IS SIGNIFICANT There are two lose ends in this which have to do with:
These two aspects are sort of wobbly with regard to establishing any kind of certainty, and so it is tricky to address them. However, one of the more recognizable certainties involved is that power will not collect around or flow to what is thought to be insignificant. That certainty is not astonishing But another certainty IS astonishing. If a number of individuals collectively begin to think that something, whether real or imagined, has significance, then power begins to collect around it, even if only weakly at first. THAT is astonishing. And indeed, when more individuals collectively begin to think-agree that something has significance, then more power will collect to whatever it is – person, idea, philosophy. facts, theory, hypothesis, real realities, illusory realities, and etc.
Within the contexts of this chapter, then, significance equals power of this or that kind, while insignificance equals powerlessness of all kinds. In this sense, it can be appreciated that power FLOWS TOWARD whatever is thought to have significance – and FLOWS AWAY from whatever is thought to have insignificance.
There is a single clue here. Significance is attributed to whatever is thought to foreshadow something, while if something is thought to foreshadow nothing, then insignificance is attributed to it.
And indeed, future prospects, if seemingly prospective enough, WILL have power flowing to them.
Chapter 25 ♦ Empowerment versus the Dumbing-Down of Human Sensing Systems
THE CENTRAL topic of this chapter has to do with the dumbing-down of knowledge with respect to the extensive scope of human sensing systems.
As discussed in the foregoing chapter, the issues surrounding the topic of significance are quite convoluting. There are no less than four principal reasons (factors) for this, and it does take a bit of mental effort to sort through them. First, significance can be attributed to something that is not significant (i.e., fake significance). In other words, something having no real futurity can be said to have it. Those who accept the alleged significance eventually find out that there is no futurity involved, and end up as losers of some kind. Second, insignificance can be alleged regarding something that really does have significance (i.e., fake insignificance).
Third, the faking of significance and insignificance represent very efficient methods that result in controlling and influencing what others think about things.
Fourth, establishing that something is insignificant when it is not is one of the most important methods for inducing and controlling depowerment. The rationale here is quite simple and efficient. As a natural tendency, people don't devote attention and interest to what they think is insignificant. So establishing something as insignificant when it is not is a very easy way to deflect attention and interest about it. And indeed, if people don't give attention to something or have interest in it, then it is often invisible to them. The four factors above lead to a very old but recognizable dilemma: if the four factors are considered, then how is one to establish what is real.
While the issue of significance versus insignificance constitutes a continuing philosophical dilemma, it is not too much of one when it comes to power, empowerment, and depowerment.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ACCESS TO FUTURITY As earlier discussed in chapter 24, there is a major, if subtle, reason as to why confusions need to be socially engineered about significance and insignificance.
The term FUTURE is defined not only as "what is going to happen," and "an expectation of advancement or progressive development."
It should be obvious that prospective futurity and power are interrelated.
If the real-life, real-time, implications of the foregoing are patiently meditated upon, then it is unthinkable that the powerful would do anything other than very carefully guard, protect, and prevent wide-spread foreknowledge access to prospective futurity. IDENTIFYING THE NEED-TO-KNOW FACTOR WITHIN POWER STRUCTURES The whole of the prospective futurity thing is, of course, very complex and confusing, so much so that it is difficult to relate it to something individuals can identify with. But there is one way of doing so, if only partially, that most can easily recognize. If it is hypothesized that foreknowledge and power have direct relationships to each other, then power games are not only games of power, but also games of prospective foreknowledge management, manipulation, and concealment.
And in fact, if one considers the typical structure of a power pyramid in this light, one can discover a significant bit of power-structure anatomy that has never been dragged into the light of day.
The "need to know" factor, and in overall power terms it more or less breaks down as follows:
In fact, the anatomy of a power structure can adequately be diagrammed not by who's who within it, or by social status, but by how the need-to-know gradients are set up, monitored, managed, and maintained.
PROPHYLAXIS REGARDING ACCESS TO POWER AND PROSPECTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE So, if power is seen as extremely precious and to be highly desired, then access to it must be guarded, or at least not made easy to obtain.
The best and most efficient way to manage and perpetuate this kind of thing is to prohibit ALL real information about power, empowerment, and methods of depowerment.
If prospective foreknowledge has something to do with gaining access to power, then gaining cognitive access to such MUST be treated somewhat along the proven efficient lines of gaining access to power.
THIS total absence acts like a prophylactic that prevents, wards off, and guards against any real access to foreknowledge. The hoped-for result of this is that the general populations are artificially dumbed-down IN GENERAL with respect to empowerment of human foreknowledge faculties – and which faculties are consistently present within our species. If only randomly, episodes of foreknowledge have naturally blossomed forth within all sorts of individuals since time immemorial, and even among the powerless. And so, as it turns out, access to power can more easily be contained and prevented than access to foreknowledge. If efficient foreknowledge is combined with efficient stealth powers, then the powerful do understand that there is a special problem here. THE NATURE OF PROPHYLAXIS It is worth pointing up an important factor regarding prophylaxis that usually escapes notice.
Thus, if foreknowledge can be prevented by information prophylaxis, then power can more easily be preserved at least with respect to foreknowledge. THE CONNECTION OF DUMMIES WITH REGARD TO POWER On average, the general concepts having to do with dumb, dumbness, and dummy, usually focus on the idea of natural or inherent stupidity, a term usually thought of as a synonym for dumb. But there are subtle differences between the two. STUPIDITY is principally defined, without too much elaboration, as "slowness of mind." But DUMB is principally defined, again without too much elaboration, as "destitute of power" regarding something, and as "lacking some usual attribute," especially in the case of "having no self-propulsion." Thus, with respect to ANY of the many contexts of power and empowerment, "having no self-propulsion" is almost identical to having powerlessness. Dumbness and stupidity are most frequently thought of as naturally existing or as inherent. But more to the point of anything significant, both can be engineered into existence via environmental factors, and via social conditioning factors.
However, there is one definition for DUMMY that signifies something along such lines. A DUMMY is defined as "one seemingly to act for himself but is in reality acting for or at the direction of another or of others."
In the light of the foregoing definitions, it is now possible to hypothesize that stupidity and dumbness can artificially be designed so as to act as prophylactics regarding access to power and foreknowledge.
LACK OF STUDIES REGARDING INTUITION It is generally understood that intuition has many uses, meaning that it is some sort of collective of powers, faculties, and intelligences, each of which download different functions.
Intuition is referred to all of the time, at least among the general population, and so it may be thought that a great deal of knowledge has accumulated about it.
Webster's, for example, indicates that INTUITION is "the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without rational thought or reference." The ENCYCLOPEDIA OF OCCULTISM AND PARAPSYCHOLOGY indicates that INTUITION is "that sense of faculty in the human mind by which man knows (or may know) facts of which he would otherwise not be cognizant – acts which might not be apparent to him through process of reason or so-called scientific proof." The up-shot of what is known about intuition is that the term exists, but much beyond that is absent, at least in any authoritative sense.
THE POSSIBLE EXTENT OF HUMAN SENSING SYSTEMS If intuition were to be better understood and explained, then it probably would have to be conceptualized as being comprised of some kind of sensing systems having to do with "the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without rational thought and inference." Although the above definition is found in dictionaries, it is rather misleading.
Furthermore, if one studies history with regard to how past peoples and cultures viewed the existence of sensing systems, two particularly interesting factors can be uncovered or at least extrapolated upon.
However, the number and kinds of sensing systems were not particularly well-defined in the past – largely because people dealt not with mechanisms of the sensing systems, but with their out-put QUALITY. In other words, people tended to judge sensing (of any kind) by what resulted because of it, even if what was sensed had no connection to the physical realms. It is clear that our predecessors, even at the start-up of recorded history, accepted the existence of human sensing systems per se. Indeed, the categorization of what IS and what is NOT sensory is therefore of relatively recent origin. Intuition, and its associated sensing systems, cannot be based only on the five physical senses. For example, the sensing of love, hate, and sexual availability are not functions of the five physical senses, and neither is the sensing of stealth activity, secrecy, duplicity, truth, falsehood, and even the sensing of power. KNOWLEDGE OF HUMAN SENSING SYSTEMS THAT HAS BEEN DUMBED-DOWN As might be understood by now, the easiest way of dumbing-down knowledge of something is to undertake ways and means that end up reducing it to insignificance.
Most people realize that they possess sensing systems that have been dumbed down within the contexts of conventional cultural, scientific, and philosophical terms, but they seldom realize why or how.
Up until about twenty years ago, the existence of dumbed-down sensing systems would have had to be hypothetically argued via psychical and parapsychological contexts.
THE PAST ARGUMENT AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF MULTI-COMPLEX SENSING SYSTEMS In order to help grok the list of extended human sensing systems that will shortly follow, it needs to be understood that the scientific argument against their existence centered on a particular aspect.
And that was the extent of human sensing receptors – until developments in electron microscopes made it possible to discover other kinds of receptors on and within the human biological organism. For clarity, a RECEPTOR is defined as "a cell or group of cells that receive stimuli." A SHORT LIST OF SENSING SYSTEMS RECEPTORS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED Please note that the following items are numbered. But this is merely for convenience, and the numbering does not establish any particular priority.
Today, the following highly specialized sensing systems are referred to in the new sciences as HUMAN SEMAPHORE CAPACITIES.
The following are now known to be associated with the PINEAL GLAND if it is healthy and in good working order.
The following senses or sensing systems are similar to some already mentioned, but they appear to function upon a completely different basis and are additional to them.
One of the best guesses, yet to be established, is that the vibrations of the water molecules link together throughout the entire bio-body and form the equivalent of radar or sonar antennae. These liquid antenna sensing systems appear to detect the following categories. Divided by categories, they can be thought of as individualized and highly refined sensing systems. All of these categories have been thought of as INTUITIVE.
Finally (although there is no "finally" here), we come to sensory systems' receptors spread throughout the entire bio-body, and which apparently feed information into the mind-body interface (if "interface" would be the correct concept).
Chapter 26 ♦ Human Sensing Systems, Power Motion, and Power Flows
WHEN INDIVIDUALS have difficulty understanding something, it is usually thought that their knowledge levels and understanding mechanisms are at fault.
After all, one can be expected to understand available information, but can hardly be expected to understand something for which no information has been identified and accumulated.
Further, if one carefully considers the short list of sensing systems receptors provided in the previous chapter, one can easily think of each set as being different.
The sets of receptors, each in their own way, detect some kind of motion – or more precisely put, each in their own way is stimulated by some kind of motion. The receptor sets are therefore specializing motion detectors. Everyone of course understands what motion is, especially with regard to physical factors. Most may even understand that radio and television receiving equipment are receptors set to detect specific frequencies and wavelengths that are being transmitted from some sending source.
The result of this is that there is a general tendency to THINK in terms of fixity. The term FIXED of course refers to whatever is "securely placed or fastened," to whatever is "stationary," and to whatever is "not subject to change or fluctuation." FIXITY then refers to "the quality or state of being fixed or stable," and most people prefer to exist among things and phenomena that have that quality.
The individual might have five physical sense receptor systems that detect and appreciate the fixity of the physical.
Because of those advancing discoveries, it is probably no longer appropriate to group those thirty-one receptor systems under the general term of intuition. But in that intuition implies acquiring information by other than physical sense means, then that term is generally applicable to most of the thirty-one receptor systems. Simply put, where there is motion there is also information. And if motion of any kind is detected by this or that sensing system, then the obvious reason for the receptors to exist in the first place is to detect NOT JUST the motion, but what it implies in terms of information. HUMAN SENSING OF HUMAN MOTIVES The whole of the foregoing becomes entirely credible if one specific and extremely significant human activity is considered.
Yet human motives are identified (intuited) all of the time, and so the sensory receptors that produce such information cannot be associated to the physical five sense.
THE RELATIONSHIP OF HUMAN MOTIVES AND THE ACQUISITION OF HUMAN POWER Hardly any understanding regarding the panorama of powerdom can be realized if the topic of human motivations is not included at some very basic level.
It follows that if acquiring power is seen as precious, then intuiting motives is seen as a very significant armament which must be prevented from falling into the hands, awarenesses, perceptions, and minds of too many. The best overall way to prevent this requires a threefold methodology:
There is no major societal power structure anywhere in the modern world that advocates and supports free and open inquiry into the nature of intuition. Even modern parapsychology, always hopeful of conventional scientific acceptance, avoids this topic like the plague. The unavoidable fact is that if intuition is better understood with regard to practical applications (including motives detection), then the certainty that societal power can remain stable becomes increasingly uncertain. This is what the significance of intuition portends if open research into it is permitted. Intuition is therefore a very sensitive and dangerous issue, so much so that those working within societal power structures will themselves not admit to having some of it. THE SUPPRESSION OF KNOWLEDGE REGARDING HUMAN MOTIVES AND MOTIVATIONS If sensing motives via some form of intuition needs to be disarmed, then it turns out that knowledge of the nature of human motives and motivations ALSO needs to be encapsulated within a knowledge vacuum. It is hard to think that this has been possible, largely because motives and motivations are referred to all of the time. Yet, the nature of motives would belong within the contexts of power studies overall, which, of course, don't exist. The usual sense attributed to motives and motivations has do with urges, desires, ideas, and intellectual content that fuel or propel motivations. And so interest is fixated on what the contents of those urges, desires, and ideas consist of. If those contents can be intellectually grasped, then it can be thought that the motives are intellectually understood. THE DYNAMICS OF MOTIVES AND MOTIVATIONS There is an aspect regarding motives and motivations that is not understandable only via whatever the contents might consist of.
The nature of dynamics has been discussed earlier, but to refresh memory, DYNAMIC can briefly be defined as "driving forces and expansionist qualities, and variations in their intensities." There are many motives and motivations having appreciable intellectual content that can be expressed as ideas, desires, urges, and intellectual goals. However, many or even most of these don't lift off or get anywhere.
A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF POWER AND POWER-MAKING When various aspects of power are examined, as they have been in this volume, many of them lead again and again to the concept of motion.
In other words, it is not something at rest, non-moving, or composed of forces in equilibrium.
Static conditions ultimately prove to be those of little change, characterized by lack of movement, animation, progression or development – and hence of little significance that portends futurity.
If a force or a power becomes static, as they often do, they change their state and cease being a force of a power. They can become energies at rest, but an energy which is motionless or static soon loses, well, loses its energy. In such cases, we like to think that the "potential" energy is still there. But energy, like power, is a strange thing
POWER FLOWS It can easily be observed that when power, energies, or forces do become static, they enter into a condition of non-motion, no change, lack of animation, no development, and "dead" dynamism, as it were.
The best way to achieve a more profound handle on this is to examine what is meant by FLOWS.
In its noun form, it is defined as:
The key concepts here are UNINTERRUPTED and CONTINUOUS TRANSFER OF ENERGY. Please memorize them if you are interested in enhancing or unfolding your own power. AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN PHYSICAL ENERGIES AND HUMAN ENERGIES One of the little-known, thus invisible problems regarding this is that static powers, energies and forces can be observed in modern and post-modern physics and engineering.
Water can be stored in tanks, and be considered at rest and at equilibrium if it is not also put under pressure. If it is put under pressure, the water molecules will increase their motion, ultimately transforming into heat and steam – and an explosion. Stationary charges of electricity can also be produced, resulting in electrostatic energy, which is a changed state of electricity noted for fantastic motion. So here is a model, a scientific one, indicating that power, energy and forces CAN be contained in a non-motion state or condition. But this model refers exclusively to physical properties. When this model is superimposed onto human conditions and situations, as it often is, it is mistakenly thought that human power, energies, and forces can be treated likewise and with the same results. The problem, though, is that the human is composed not only of physical properties, but psychological and motivational ones, and also of the little-understood "life" energies.
Even so, for the better part of the modern scientific age, scientists thought of the human as a mechanical or mechanistic product of physical properties only, from which somehow resulted the psychological and motivational circumstances which came into play. Thus, it seemed rational to apply the physics model to human activity or lack of it, and in many categories that model was superimposed on the human, which is also a vehicle for power, energies, and forces which differ considerably from the physical model. That this was an egregious error in the extreme can become apparent to those who undertake human power studies, and when it is understood that the human is not only a complex series of bio-physical mechanisms, but a psychological vehicle which emanates motivations. The bio-physical mechanisms are atomic, chemical and electrical in their inherent nature. But human psychology and resulting motivations are quite another matter, indeed. A larger grasp of all this can be achieved by considering that the human bio-physical mechanisms are preordained, as it were, by factors present in the genetic codes which format the mechanisms, and thus the entire physical body. These genetic factors are TRANSFERRED from the parents, but themselves are also present in the entire human genetic pool (the human genome) world-wide. That the genetic factors ARE transferred is a complete indication that the factors are in motion, have energy, and produce the flows which altogether combine into the resulting product, another biological individual. Each human life would therefore be a simple matter – if this was all there was to the life situation.
It is commonly acknowledged, even if grudgingly so, that the human bio-mechanism is also equipped with a psyche that acts more like a BEING than a mere mechanism.
And the problem becomes more confounding when it is understood that the indwelling psyche, the psychological profile, and the motivations - which are what they are of and in themselves – can also have formative and deformative impact on the bio-mechanical systems. For example, psychosomatic symptoms, illnesses, and conditions are attributed to factors within the psychological profile, not to the bio-mechanisms themselves. Thus, it can become quite clear that the psyche, the psychological profile, and the motivations have power, energies, and forces of their own. Otherwise they would not impact either positively or negatively on the bio-mechanical systems. It is not at all clear whether the bio-mechanisms or the psyche, etc., are primary. But it would be obvious that the human being is composed of at least TWO systems: the bio-mechanistic one; and the other consisting of a mix of the psyche, the psychological profile, and the motivations which emanate from them. On the other hand, motivations presumably originating in the psyche or the psychological profile often lead to the death of the bio-body. And in such a case, it would be clear which system was primary. You see, motivations often lead to the sacrifice of the bio-body, if they are of that kind. If we can conclude, as we might, that the human being is composed of two systems, then both consist of power, energies and forces. This is to say that both systems consist of movement or motion flows. The power and energies of the bio-mechanisms and of the psyche-psychological profile are not easily or immediately recognizable. This is to say that most people have powers and energies they don't recognize or even know about. And here is the single, and the biggest, clue which can lead to the enhancement and unfoldment of power. For it can be assumed, and probably correctly so, that a sense of powerlessness is proportionate to the existence of powers and energies which the individual does not yet recognize within self – and which, therefore, have not undergone the unfoldment processes. Something of the same can also be said regarding charisma, and various kinds of charisma, which may lie unactivated within self because the individual has not realized they exist within. If on the one hand individuals possess power, energies and forces within that they don't recognize, on the other hand motivations are usually more identifiable and recognizable. To comprehend why this is so, we need to look at the meanings of MOTIVE and MOTIVATION. THE NATURE OF MOTIVES AND MOTIVATIONS Most dictionaries will give the definition of MOTIVE as "something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act." MOTIVATION is derived from TO MOTIVATE, which means to provide with a motive. But these words are derived from earlier words in other languages having to do with MOTOR and MOTION, and which mean:
In this sense, motives and motivations may not be identifiable or visible of themselves, but that they result in action brings visibility to them. Additionally, and surprisingly, it may not matter what the intellectual contents of motives are. For if motives do not manifest dynamic flows, then they will not manifest. Conversely, if the dynamic flows are present then it probably will not matter too much what the intellectual contents consist of. In other words, the dynamic flows are themselves the power, not the ideas behind them. More precisely, the motive or motivation consists of the dynamic energies or forces which result in the action, while the action itself, if powerful enough, will set in motion subsequent activity, often as in the case of a chain reaction. One of the points being made here is that the motive or the motivation is actually at first a FLOW of energy or force BEFORE it results in whatever action or activity it does. The motivational flow then results in an action, while the action itself induces subsequent flows among its targeted areas. When we think of a motivation as an action first and foremost, then we are missing the very important power qualities which precede the action. You see, power may or may not grow or persist via the action alone – and indeed the power-strength of the action may be questionable and non-determinative. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, the action itself may or may not have power, and this is determined exclusively by how OTHERS respond to it.
Dynamism equates to significance and portends something. Lack of dynamism equates to insignificance and portends very little or nothing at all.
Chapter 27 ♦ The Forgotten Connection of Power and Potency
IT IS rather broadly accepted that power has to become manifested in some form in order to recognize it and then to intellectually appreciate its complexities. In other words, power has to be obvious enough to perceive it, so that one can intellectually deal with it in one way or another. This is true, of course, but only partly so. If one undertakes a study of the very large panorama of power, it can be discovered that some can accurately sense it as existing before it becomes obviously manifested – and some can accurately sense it as coming or as about to happen before it makes its appearance in any obvious form. If one attempts to examine the nature of this sensing, it can reasonably be established that many who are trying to climb power ladders do not have it. And neither do many of the temporarily powerful.
It is thus that yet another very subtle aspect having some portending significance to power can be brought to light. RECOGNIZING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WILL AND WILL NOT BECOME POWER It is difficult to get a handle on this, because the implication is that although many might not exactly know what power is, they can somehow recognize the difference between (1) what is and what is not power, and, more importantly, (2) what will and will not become power.
It can first be thought that this kind of sensing could be the same as sensing significance and insignificance. But the difficulty here is that it generally takes a number of individuals to intellectually or emotionally agree about what has significance and what has insignificance. Thus, and as is well known, those kinds of agreements can be mistaken and eventually stand revealed as clap-trap. For clarity, the central interest here has to do with how it is possible to identify power before it happens and becomes obvious.
POWER AS IT IS IN THE HERE AND NOW versus POWER AS IT WAS BACK IN TIME One of the difficulties in getting a handle on this topic is that people are usually only interested in power as it is being thought of in the "here and now," or as it will be in the immediate future. A real history of power itself does not exist, of course, because what is taken to be history merely consists of recounting the successes, failures, vicissitudes, trials, and tribulations of the powerful and the epochs in which they lived.
Although it cannot be known for sure, it seems reasonable to assume that what we today refer to as power was, in the distant pre-historical past, closely associated with the basic imperative of survival per se.
This can become more clear if one considers the differences between, for example, power structures based in survival, and those based in greed and power only for the sake of power. In the survival sense, it seems logical to think that the qualities of awareness, vivid observing capacities, cunning, craftiness, enhanced sensing, and perhaps intuitive and inventive intelligence were closely associated with enhancing survival potentials. Today, such qualities do have relevance to survival. But as has been copiously discussed by now, the qualities listed in the foregoing paragraph are more likely to be considered as enemies not of power itself, but of the powerful few, and of the maintenance of their particular power structures. In any event, there is an important distinction between power on behalf of survival, and power on behalf of whatever else.
On the one hand, it seems that power on behalf of survival can only take place in some kind of survival setting, and will principally involve individuals and enhancement of their power qualities. On the other hand, power on behalf of anything else than survival can only take place within some kind of societal setting within which basic survival per se is mostly guaranteed, but within which power positioning is not. This distinction reflects that shifts in various notions of power have taken place. One of the chief shifts involves the following.
SHIFTS IN POWER CONCEPTS AS REVEALED IN LANGUAGE Everyone more or less realizes that contexts of power have shifted many times from the minimized individual level to the maximized corporate societal levels.
As but one example, this shift away from individual power for the sake of survival to societal power for the sake of power can indeed be identified via the evolving definitions of power in the English language. In English, the etymology of POWER shows that it was probably taken via French into early English during the eighth century, from the Latin term POTERE which referred to a combination of "to be able" and "potent."
The term POTENT is most certainly drawn from the Sanskrit PATI, referring to "master."
Most modern dictionaries render vague and somewhat impotent definitions for POTENT, and which clearly are not what the ancients had in mind. For clarity. there are distinctions between (1) whatever affects, influences, and even overwhelms, and (2) whatever DOES NOTHING OF THE KIND. Whatever does nothing of the kind is certainly impotent. But what the ancients more probably meant by potent is more akin to the modern English terms DYNAMIC or DYNAMISM which, in some major sense at least, refer to the potent quality of power-full-ness. The earliest English definition of POUWER or POWAR is established as emerging at about 1297. It is given as "Illustration of forms."
In 1297, POUWER was also thought of in two additional ways:
By 1325, however, two definitions of POWAR emerged which we can easily recognized today:
Now follows the list of definitions regarding POWAR and associated terms as they evolved during the five centuries between 1340 and 1864.
THE LOSS OF THE CONCEPT OF POTENCY From the foregoing list, it can be seen that the definition of POWER as possession of command or control over others has been with us since 1297 A.D.
The one term that links together all of these many definitions and their nuances is POTENT, and from which all of the definitions can be seen as deriving either in full or in part.
POTENT - RADIANT - RADIATING The term POTENT can be utilized in many ways, of course, but especially so with regard to whatever STRONGLY radiates something – again as in fragrance, odor, or stink.
But this is almost the same as saying that whatever radiates only weakly or not at all will not emanate power, while whatever does strongly radiate can emanate or have power. At this point, there is hardly much need to further elaborate upon the nature of potency.
In conducting this re-read, pay particular attention to 1, 7, 13, 14, 15, and 23 through 31.
Chapter 28 ♦ Where Do Individual and Societal Powers Begin or Start?
VIA EACH chapter in this book, some twenty-seven general aspects of power have been discussed, along with various subtle elements whose themes recur again and again.
MISTAKING SOCIETAL POWER FOR POWER ITSELF Over time and centuries, most of those distinctions have become locked in societal cement – i.e., have become accepted not only as natural, but as proper, traditional, and authentic. As such, what has become locked in cement is not too much brought into questioning that might shed light on whether the authenticity is real or imagined. Whether real or imagined, anyone attempting to empower or re-empower themselves will soon encounter a menu of those distinctions, even if they don't realize that they exist. Whether real or imagined, even the imagined are societally maintained as real. As discussed and implied throughout the text, societal power structures are social artifices set up and intended to result in two obvious functions:
Societal "power" is obviously not power itself, but merely clever USES of it, uses sequestered to the powerful, and largely denied to and prevented among the powerless.
POWER "STARTS" AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL Power per se obviously belongs to, and is innate within, our species, and whose wondrous complexities, powers, and virtues manifest at the individual level.
If it is to be thought that power belongs to societal power structures and their managers, then two processes must be instituted:
It is thus that those seeking empowerment will encounter an almost complete absence of knowledge regarding human powers in general. If visible and invisible societal factors do not defeat empowerment, that particular lack of knowledge probably will. One cannot really empower something unless one knows it does exist. The basic outcome of this is that no matter in which socio-cultural situation they live, most humans do not know what their powers actually are. Those powers are actually quite numerous, and the sole purpose of Volume II is to identify and discuss them in as much depth as possible.
THE HORROR OF DISCOVERING THAT ONE IS RELATIVELY POWERLESS At some point as their lives progress, vast numbers of people come to recognize that they are relatively or mostly powerless. It is rather embarrassing and demeaning to undergo this kind of realization, especially if one suspects that one's powerlessness is recognizable by others.
Existing in some condition of powerlessness might have its life-defacing aspects. But it is far worse to find that others think one is insignificant.
One notable way of getting around being seen by others as relatively powerless is to somehow to give the impression that one is not.
Behind the scenes of all this, however, a good number of those having some degree of powerlessness begin to wonder where and how power actually begins or starts up.
Those two "reasons" are easily identifiable because they have enormous cultural and societal support and hence are assumed to be authentic:
But if those "reasons" are examined in detail, they prove not to be all that authentic. Some of the reasons why are as follow:
THE BIRTH OF HUMAN POWER(S) Power is generally seen as an adult thing, and so it may at first seem slightly counter-productive to bring up the powers of infants.
Power and empowerment cannot possibly start up or begin as one seeks to enter a power artifice, but must begin elsewhere and outside of the artifice. The question then is not how to enter a power structure, but where do human powers begin or start up. And THE basic reality having to do with human power(s) start-up or beginnings is perfectly obvious.
It is true that postnatal infants are not immediately seen that way. But in large part this is due to assuming that their initial physical helplessness is also the chief characteristic of their natural, indwelling power(s) and empowering endowments. Then, piled on top of this essential confusion, is the additional fact that babes are seen NOT as power-humans, but as immature beings that need to be programmed so as ultimately to fit within the cultural and environmental circumstances they have popped out into. On average, THIS social conditioning takes precedence over all else, and electrically so, with the usual justification that babes are powerless at first.
A WINDOW INTO THE PROBABLE EXTENT OF POWERS OF INFANTS It is worth noting here that we are talking of INFANTS, not children.
An easy, quick, and brief way to get some idea of the inborn powers of INFANTS is to acquire access to the July 1993 issue of LIFE magazine. This issue presents an article entitled THE AMAZING MINDS OF INFANTS (pages 46-52).
They can understand a hundred words (of any language, some 30,000 of them) before they can speak.
Babies can comprehend before they can express that they do. This comprehension may exceed expression by a factor as high as one hundred to one.
The whole of this may be simply referred to as abilities. But in more crucial fact, they are inborn powers. But whether speaking of abilities or powers, if infants have the highly complex powers discussed in the LIFE article, then there can be no doubt that they also possess others.
IS ONE BORN POWERLESS? All the evidence accumulated as a basis for the three volumes comprising this series of SECRETS OF POWER clearly reveals that one is not born powerless.
|
VOLUME II ♦ THE VITALIZING OF INDIVIDUAL POWERS
Volume II ♦ Introduction
Most books about power only deal with the societal formula of the few having power over the enormously larger powerless masses, and which is mistaken as the so-called “natural order of power.” But it is not well understood that this formula also requires social conditioning measures aimed at perpetuating the continuing depowerment of the powerless so that the powerful CAN have power over them. This in turn requires the societal suppression and secretizing of all knowledge about the superlative human powers known to exist in individuals of the human species, but which are socially forced into latency in most. It is broadly understood that power and secrecy go together, but the scope of the “web” of secrets surrounding the larger nature of human power(s) is surprising. As discussed in this Volume I of SECRETS OF POWER, empowerment is difficult if the larger panorama of societal power and depowerment are not more full understood. Any desire for more individual empowerment will soon encounter the question of WHAT to empower. There are many ways to consider this. One way is first to identify human power elements that are known to exist, but DO NOT receive societal nurturing, enhancement, training, scientific research, or philosophical interest. In-depth research will reveal at least five major categories of these power elements, one such category consisting of the aware powers innate in everyone of our species. The direct relationship between the spectrum of aware powers and increases of power is self-evident. The direct relationship between less or no awareness and less or no power is also self-evident. Most societal power structures do not encourage too much development of any aware and related powers, and, via societal programming of punishment, some structures force them into latency altogether. One basic reason is that too much awareness erodes the efficiency of walls of secrecy that support the elite of most power structures, whether large or small. Most are familiar with the awareness they have. But few are familiar with the awarenesses they don't have, but which anyway innately exist within their otherwise amazing information systems. Author's Note
POWER UNFOLDMENT at the individual level is probably one of the most spectacular of all human phenomena. We can say this at least hypothetically – because we know that individuals innately have more powers than those few permitted by various societal formats and the empowerment power restrictions in them. It is because of such restrictors that we do not often witness spectacular individual power unfoldement per se. What we usually see instead is just enough unfoldment of individual personas so as to fit them, one way or another, into various slots within their social and societal environments. And as discussed throughout Volume I of this series, those social and societal environments in fact determine what power is to be or not to be. And it is thus power that tends to be understood only within the contexts of social power games, while innate human powers are seldom understood if at all. If the foregoing is considered as calmly as possible, it can then be seen that the human is a social creature as well as an individual, and that where the one leaves off and the other begins is quite difficult to determine. And so there are difficulties establishing what The Individual actually is. The concept of The Individual is, of course, quite precious and meaningful, and especially so within the philosophical systems of the highly developed countries of the modern West.
*** In the early 1830s, the French politician and writer, Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) undertook a government mission to the United States to study penal systems. But he studied American politics and behavior, too.
This "novel idea" caught on like a wild fire, and was soon given more terse definition as: "Self-centered feeling or conduct as a principle; a mode of life in which the individual pursues his own ends or follows his own ideas; free and independent individual action or thought; egoism." By 1870, INDIVIDUALISM had even achieved, of all things, a metaphysical definition: "The doctrine that the individual is a self-determined whole, and that any larger whole is merely an aggregate of individuals, which, if they act on each other at all, do so externally." By 1884, the term had been given an additional definition as "The social theory which advocates the free and independent action of the individual as opposed to communistic methods of organization and state interference." Meanwhile, earlier in about 1840, the term INDIVIDUALIST had come into general usage and was defined as: "One who pursues an independent or egoistic course in thought or action."
These definitions, all formulated during the nineteenth century, have been provided here for what they are worth in general.
One of the on-going problems that seems to be involved is quite similar to one that plagues concepts of empowerment at the individual level. Certain concepts can be functional within a given level of reality, but not in others.
It is this multiplicity of levels of reality, mind-sets, and reality boxes that complicates the contexts of empowerment, and those of power itself – for, as many come to realize, or perhaps experience to their surprise – empowerment and power can be achieved within certain contexts, but can fall flat in others. This is to emphasize that given ideas of The Individual, of empowerment, and about power emanate from the mind-sets or reality boxes that produce them. And, as most can realize, what works for a given reality box can be ineffective, meaningless, and sterile with respect to others. *** There is one possible reason it has proven so difficult to establish conclusive definitions about what The Individual consists of
If all reality boxes were the same in clone-like accord, and always remained that way through the generations, then what individuals consist of could be defined with some precision – and, as well, their thoughts and actions could efficiently be predicted. Indeed, elements of this kind of thing can easily be identified in the reality-box conditioning practices of most societal power structures. In those structures, the less powerful and the powerless are supposed to exist in clone-like accord as determined by the power structure, whether it is large or small. From this kind of thing, it can be concluded, in a larger-picture way, that societal power structures can initiate and maintain reality-box cloning. Well, yes. But there is an even larger picture. For, as is understood, and as our history demonstrates, the reality boxes of this and that societal power structure come and go – to be REPLACED by new and other ones requiring new and other reality-box cloning practices. If this is contemplated upon as serenely as possible, there is only ONE WAY that such multiple reality-box transitions can occur. While it IS the case that societal power structures can initiate this or that reality-box cloning and management, it is the HUMAN SPECIES that has the generic and innate power to manufacture reality boxes of ANY kind.
*** In that this is so, it is the better part of valor to assume that whatever the species has downloads into each and all specimens of it. It is thus that we find all individuals have reality boxes, whether of the tattered or highly organized kind. Because of the magnitude involved, the innate species power of manufacturing reality boxes is a wondrous thing – the direct implication being that there are no real or even illusory realities that permanently fall outside of possible or potential cognizance. It can be understood, however, that possible or potential cognizance on such a scale is something that is problematical to most power structures – whose stability much depends upon not too much cognizance outside of whatever cognizance is permissible. *** One of the bottom lines of this small discussion is that there are two general perspectives regarding individual empowerment.
With respect to this latter perspective (and as discussed throughout Volume I), the best way to preserve the pyramidal power structure format and the power status of the few, is to prevent information and knowledge about power, human powers, and empowerment from accumulating and becoming accessible to all individuals who might benefit from it. It is thus, even in our present age of information gluts, that there are no socially endorsed power schools or encyclopedias that reveal in-depth information about power and all that can be associated with it. These absences are particularly noticeable within the modern age of so-called universal enlightenment, and which, to be sure, has produced encyclopedic knowledge sources for just about everything else. The traditional concept most central to the longenduring pyramidal power structure arrangement holds that the majority of individuals are born innately inferior to those who are born innately superior to them, especially with respect to intelligence. The many sad and revolting implications of this longenduring concept have been discussed in Volume I of this series – and, as well, in a recent book entitled THE MAKING OF INTELLIGENCE, by Ken Richardson (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1999), herewith highly recommended to anyone seriously interested in individual empowerment. Any enlightened discussion of the revolting traditional concept brings into view a very important, two-part question regarding individual empowerment: whether most, or even some, individuals are naturally born without innate powers; or whether, via the processes of social conditioning, individuals are rendered ignorant of their innate powers, an ignorance that works to diminish those innate powers into inactive states. At least part of an answer here is that it is difficult to see how individuals can function at all unless they are born with an innate spectrum of powers, a spectrum that, furthermore, is quite extensive as will be considered in the text ahead. Just because a large number of those powers can be rendered non-operational by social conditioning should not be taken as proof-positive that a spectrum of innate powers does not exist in each individual. *** This author posits and accepts that all individuals born of our species ARE born with a rather large spectrum of innate powers – especially that of mind-intelligence and which requires the support of several subsidiary kinds of powers. But it is also posited that few realize what the fuller spectrum of their powers are because there is no place one can consult in order to find out what they are. And the continuing absence of detailed encyclopedias about human powers will ensure the perpetuation of this particular kind of non-knowledge. While there are no encyclopedias that specialize in describing human power phenomena, it can be discovered that many earlier dictionaries identify and define numerous powers. The two dictionaries this author majorly depends on are Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1974), and the much more extensive Oxford Dictionary of the English Language. Other sources consulted are identified in the text. It is difficult to surmise what individuals think power consists of. But the evidence is very good that many identify power and empowerment within this or that social context – the home, the local environment, various peer groupings, the work place, various economic workings, the career industries, the ever-changing political and professional competitions, and etc. It is of course important to learn how to better survive and function within social contexts, and so there is nothing intrinsically amiss with such aims. But there are important distinctions to be made between social context empowerment and the contexts of innate human powers in general. And in fact, it can be discerned or intuited that recognition and enhancement of one's own innate powers can magnify one's empowerment in social contexts. Beyond the individual, group, social, and cultural levels is the much bigger picture of the human species itself. If the species level is considered, it can certainly be understood that all power and empowerment activities, no matter where, when, or to what degree, are manifestations within the overall species context. In that context, whatever individuals are or become, they are first and foremost members, or life units, which are downloaded from within the proliferating species out of which they have descended. The contents of this volume are thus based in the observable fact that the human species possesses a large range of powers, and that these, in formative essence, download into each individual born of the species. At least some of these powers are so innately basic that no individual can achieve any kind of operational or functional survival without them – and it is a discussion of some of these basic powers, innately present in all individuals, which provide the principal contents of this volume. *** A WORKING DEFINITION OF HUMAN POWERS IS BEST ESTABLISHED AS INNATE, INBORN SOURCES OF SUPPLYING ENERGY – AND WHICH SOURCES ARE CAPABLE OF MAGNIFICATION, OF DECREASE, OF BEING LATENT AND UNTAPPED, AND OF BEING DE-ENERGIZED OR DEPOWERED Indeed, synonyms for POWER are usually given as force, energy, strength, and might. These synonyms reflect qualities of power that can be exerted physically and mentally – all of which can be nurtured and enhanced, or caused to be latent or weakened. As with the issues discussed in Volume I, the topics selected for presentation in this volume can be identified and verified by those individuals interested in doing so. Volume II ♦ Table of Contents
Obituary
[LINK]
Ingo Swann (1933-2013)
Few of us get to be the originators of anything unique, much less something so revolutionary that it just might change the entire world. Yet that is the case with Ingo Douglas Swann, who passed away from the effects of a stroke on the 31st of January, 2013 at the age of 79. Ingo was born in Telluride, Colorado on September 14, 1933, and was both sensitive and intuitive almost from his first awareness. He experienced an out-of-body state at 2 years of age in which, though fully anesthetized during a tonsillectomy, he was able to observe and later report accurate details of the procedure. That event initiated an ongoing series of out-of-body and clairvoyant experiences that he quickly learned not to share with any but his maternal grandmother, who herself had a sensitivity for such things. Ingo took his education at Westminster College in Salt Lake City, Utah, earning a double degree in art and biology. He served a three-year enlistment in the US Army, much of it in Korea in an administrative position with the 8th Army. During this time he became bridge partner and friends with Madame Syngman Rhee, the Austrian-born wife of South Korea's first president, and played an important behind-the-scenes role in preventing a major international incident, for which he received a letter of commendation. Out of the Army and transplanted to New York City in the early 1960s to begin his art career, Ingo supported himself for 12 years as an employee in the Secretariat of the United Nations in various roles. While nurturing his fledgling art career, he made the acquaintance of many of the literati and intellectuals in New York social circles of the day, including people such as artist Andy Warhol, whose parties Ingo attended just a few blocks from his own residence in the Bowery. Some of these connections led him to the world of experimental parapsychology which was enjoying a heyday in the Manhattan of the mid-to-late 1960s and early 1970s. Gertrude Schmeidler of the City College of New York, with whom Ingo worked on psychokinesis research, and Karlis Osis, of the American Society for Psychical Research, with whom he became involved in out-of-body perceptual work were two of the more prominently active parapsychologists at the time. In 1971 Ingo proposed a new parapsychology research protocol that involved participants in trying to "observe" locations or settings separated from them by either distance or shielding under fully-blind conditions. He named this protocol "remote viewing," and it served as the kernel around which all of the discipline of remote viewing and its various aspects ultimately formed. Cleve Backster, a leading pioneer in polygraph and "lie-detector" development was also engaged in the forward edge of consciousness research, and Ingo became affiliated with this researcher as well. The connection with Backster soon led to a defining moment in Ingo's career. After coming across a communication sent to Backster by Dr. Harold E. "Hal" Puthoff proposing an experiment based on Backster's "Primary Perception" theories, Ingo volunteered himself to participate in the research. Puthoff invited Ingo to the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in Menlo Park, California. On June 6, 1972 the two of them performed a watershed experiment in the basement of the Varian Physics Building on the Stanford University campus. With no previous access to a large-scale magnetometer being used for fundamental physics research, Ingo was able to both mentally influence the output of the heavily-shielded device and to correctly clairvoyantly sketch the relationships of elements in the internal mechanism. Word of this success eventually reached the Central Intelligence Agency's Office of Technical Services, and Puthoff was shortly visited by representatives of the CIA, who further tested Ingo's abilities and offered a preliminary $50,000 contract to explore both the psychokinesis (PK) and the new-found remote viewing phenomena. This was the beginning of a 23-year involvement of the US Government in remote viewing research and applications. In 1976 Ingo directly involved his good offices in recruiting nuclear physicist Ed May who would one day come to head the SRI effort. Though other remote viewers were recruited and, where necessary, taught or trained, Ingo remained a central figure in the program, suggesting new research directions and participating in thousands of remote viewing trials, both research-oriented and for practical applications. Starting in the late 1970s and continuing through the first half of the following decade, Hal Puthoff and Ingo focused on isolating and identifying the underlying principles and, eventually, developing a system to convey to naive subjects the techniques and competencies of successful, well-experienced remote viewers. This research ultimately culminated in what is known today as "controlled remote viewing" (CRV - originally called "coordinate remote viewing"). The process progresses through six "stages," beginning from general mental contact with the target and subsequently guiding the viewer's consciousness up through increasingly detailed target access. CRV proved successful in developing remote viewing capabilities in naive subjects, and in 1982 was first offered to the Army to further develop the military remote viewing program already underway. Due to changes in Army politics, the SRI training contract was completed at the end of 1984, and never renewed. The military program officially moved on from the Army to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the end of January, 1986. The CRV methodology was used extensively and successfully during the following years of the program. Ingo continued to be associated and participate with SRI until 1989, when he declared his retirement from parapsychology research. There followed two decades of fruitful writing and painting, where Ingo authored several popular books, articles, and content for his own comprehensive website, biomindsuperpowers.com. Ingo was a popular, sought-after speaker who, nonetheless limited his speaking engagements. The International Remote Viewing Association was fortunate to have him speak at three of its conferences, plus an additional one it co-sponsored with the Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach, Virginia. After his retirement, Ingo occasionally dipped his toe back briefly into active parapsychology research. He worked chiefly with Dr. Michael Persinger at Laurentian University in a set of fruitful experiments attempting to identify correlations between remote viewing functioning and brain activation. Appropriately, at the time of his passing Ingo was well along in organizing and producing a book of his marvelous artwork, a final legacy to bestow on the world. We have hopes that this book will eventually be made available for us all to appreciate and enjoy. Now, just a few days after his passing, Ingo Swann is already sorely missed. Our planet is, indeed, emptier without him in it. But what he left behind will contribute to the developing of higher levels of human consciousness for many years to come - indeed, likely forever. Paul H. Smith THE RESEARCH WORK OF INGO SWANN – A 32-YEAR OVERVIEW
[LINK]
Since 1970, Ingo Swann has worked with over 38 cutting-edge researchers in the fields of parapsychology and cognitive perception, with an additional 14 projects governed by nondisclosure agreements. His early 1970-1972 work with parapsychology researchers based in New York produced results that attracted international attention and acclaim. By 1973, with thousands of experimental trials counted up, he was broadly noted as parapsychology’s most tested “guinea-pig.” However, he is best known for his long-term association with Dr. H. E. Puthoff at Stanford Research Institute (SRI). This work (between 1972 and 1988 in the field of remote viewing) achieved high luminosity because of sponsorship by U.S. intelligence and military Through these years, hundreds of thousands of experimental trials contributed to increases of knowledge that had not been attained elsewhere. After his retirement in 1989 from such big-time research, Swann continued intermittent work with advanced researchers in the fields of multidimensional mental imagery, perception, and refined brainwave studies. Swann’s 32-years of work is unified by four principal factors
All of these factors were incorporated into the fifteen year research project at Stanford Research Institute, and helped produce development of various important but hitherto unknown aspects of remote viewing. The project also researched and leaned heavily on hundreds of published papers and information drawn from scientific sources outside the boundaries of parapsychology focus. In a socio-cultural sense, Swann’s overall 30-odd years of work roughly covers two periods of mainstream intolerance-tolerance ratios. Always and only working with accredited scientists, his work between 1970-1985 took place within a long established milleu of extreme scientific and mainstream intolerance to human faculties of expanded and refined perception. Since 1985, this intolerance has ameliorated considerably, largely due to advancing discoveries about the impressive extent of biological receptors of the human body-mind, many of which account for extraordinary human sensing faculties. Continuing discovery confirming the remarkable nature of the human genome has also clearly established that the genetic basis for those faculties is present in most individuals, although remaining socially non-nurtured and undeveloped. As of 2000, however, extreme intolerance against scientific development of telepathy remains abundantly active. In summing up his three decades of work and research, Swann holds that human sensing-perceptive systems are, in their total and probable scope, extraordinary and remarkable, and that they are composed not only of known factors, but also of potentials not yet identified and studied. But human sensing-perceptive systems are complex, especially when expanded and developed into higher-stage functioning. In the face of these glorious systems, simplistic, insular, and dogmatic approaches are seldom Useful either with regard to understanding them or specially with regard to developing them. Therefore, increasing amounts of inter-disciplinary information need to be drawn from any source possible and organized into the larger picture of all that is involved. A partial archive of many factors involved can be found in his website http://www.biolmindsuperpowers.com A PARTIAL LISTING OF RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTS IN WHICH INGO SWANN HAS PARTICIPATED:
Many of the research papers and documents that involved Ingo can be downloaded and viewed [HERE]. The closest to the actual training methods Ingo created & handed over to the U.S. military can be downloaded here: 1985 CRV in house training manual & notes – Author; Tom McNear.
A Note About the Suggested Exercises
ALTHOUGH MUCH is known about learning processes, there is still a lot that remains mysterious and unknown.
One general factor that is not so obvious is that people best recognize what they expect to see and often fail in recognizing whatever they do not expect to see. This factor is well understood, for example, in the movie producing industry where statistics show that films that reflect expectations of the many are more likely to make more money This factor is closely related to another having to do with the fact that people not only see, but best sense and experience what they expect to, and have trouble sensing and experiencing what they do not expect. For example, most do not expect to experience telepathy or intuition or other subtle activities supporting empowerment. And so they might not realize that such activities go on all the time about them. Thus, what we expect to see is visible to us, while the unexpected can easily remain invisible. Various studies about the processes of perception reveal two important issues. First, what we expect to see/experience has meaning, whereas what we do not expect can remain meaningless.
With respect to learning, we learn best what we expect to learn, or what seems most meaningful to learn, and usually so only within the criteria of whatever social contexts we inhabit. And as discussed in Volume I of this series, most social contexts are power-competitive and so they do not nurture too much empowerment in too many. In general, learning is principally assumed to consist of being taught something by others, and this is indeed the great workhorse of all educational processes, methods, and learning packages. But sometimes there are bitter bottom lines to this. One of these is that learning is thought of as coming from outside of self, and it is via this factor that innate elements of awareness and perception naturally present within are diminished and not nurtured.
With regard to learning about power and empowerment, the overall situation is quite complex. As but one example of this complexity identified by the critic Julian Barnes, "books are where things are explained to you, life is where they are not, and I'm not surprised that some people prefer books." One can think of power and empowerment as a life principle, not a book principle, for books can only reflect the reality boxes of their authors, and which, in the end, may not have too much to do with the ever-present, multiplex situation of realities behind realities behind other realities. Explanatory books about power and empowerment are more than welcome. But power and empowerment go on in life more than in books, and so in addition to books one must also learn to look into life factors themselves. No one can learn about, or deal with, what they are not aware of and hence do not perceive. But everyone learns from what they can become aware of and perceive. And the case is very good that the advent of new awareness and perception triggers activation of new responsive empowerment systems within. One of the facts of life, where little is explained, is that it is populated with multitudes of other people, each of which displays not only a tangible, visible surface - but ALSO a mind-dynamic interior which may or may not be all that visible, or can be completely invisible altogether.
There can be little doubt that individuals, as they are taught to do, first focus awareness and perception on the directly tangible, the physically obvious, and that incremental categories of learning do take place in this manner.
However, as discussed in the text ahead, we all have reality boxes that, after strong formatting, might decrease awareness and perception of whatever does not fit into them - especially with respect to more subtle, non-tangible factors at work in others and in life that is NOT organized in book form. The suggested exercises in these volumes of SECRETS OF POWER point out factors that can be identified and confirmed as existing if an attempt is made to do so, and the recognition of which might increase awareness, perception, and empowerment potentials in one's own interior.
All of the suggested exercises in these volumes are elective and they are useful only to the degree they turn out to be self-informative.
Copyright
For more information about the author, visit https://ingoswann.com/ TO PLACE ORDERS FOR THIS BOOK 1 888 453-5056 (Toll Free) SECRETS OF POWER Volume II: THE VITALIZING OF INDIVIDUAL POWERS Copyright 2002 by Ingo Swann. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording means or otherwise without prior written permission of the author. Published in the United States by Ingo Swann Books, P.O. Box 2875 Rapid City, South Dakota 57709-2875 Telephone numbers for placing orders for this book: (888) 453-4046 (USA, Canada) (Toll Free) (605) 341-5660 (Foreign) (605) 341-0020 (Fax) Printed in the United States of America ISBN 0-9667674-3-8 Also by Ingo Swann
To Kiss Earth Good-bye Cosmic Art (Editor) Star Fire (Fiction) Natural ESP: A Layman's Guide to Unlocking the Extra Sensory Power of Your Mind Everybody's Guide to Natural ESP Your Nostradamus Factor: Accessing Your Innate Ability to See into the Future Purple Fables (Quartet) VOLUME II - PART I ♦ NOVEL OVERVIEWS RELEVANT TO EMPOWERMENT
Chapter 1 ♦ Bigger Pictures and Missing Definitions
IF POWER was not considered a very precious thing, then no one would care if empowerment was possible or not, and anyone could indulge in empowerment studies and activities without interference. But power IS considered a precious possession, and hence it is broadly treated as are all precious things.
It follows that anyone showing symptoms of empowerment comes under close observation by many, and thus begins the long tale of conflict of depowerment versus empowerment, many particulars of which have been discussed in Volume I. THE AMAZING ABSENCE OF CERTAIN IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS One of the results of this long-enduring and ever-continuing conflict is that we have no meaningful definition of empowerment. The term is minimalized even in dictionaries – a fact that can be confirmed by anyone taking the time to do so. There are, however, two standard dictionary definitions for POWER, the first and most familiar of which is given as:
The second definition, which is omitted from some contemporary dictionaries, is given as:
It is understood that the "particular active property" somehow leads into "Ability to act or affect something strongly; to physical or mental force; to might, vigor, and energy; to force of character." While the foregoing definitions seem decent and clear enough, the second one at least is actually ambiguous in the extreme because the "particular active property" is not attributed to anything at all, and one is therefore left in ignorance about its formative essence. The term ABILITY is often thought of as synonymous with POWER, but it is not – if definitions are to be adhered to.
There is a rather large distance between "particular active property" and "acquired competence," a distance that leads to the question as to how and by what means the "competence" can come into existence. Surely, if the "particular active property" is, shall we say, not all that active, then it is dubious that it can affect anything – a situation that we can now see equates to various kinds of powerlessness. If one has attentively been following the foregoing discussion, it can become apparent that there is no descriptive definition for the "particular active property." The absence of such a definition is quite amazing, in that the particular active property is assumed to exist behind whatever affects it causes, and which affects are in no way small matters of importance. In respect to this omission, it becomes possible to wonder if the "particular active property" could exist if human powers did not. And if one elects to wonder about this, one might as well also wonder if there is a well-considered definition regarding the essential nature of human powers – the answer to which is once more mostly in the negative. By now it might have become clear that some working definitions need to be provided to fill in for some absent ones, at least for the contexts of this book. A tentative working definition on behalf of human powers might be thought of as referring to those powers that are:
Indeed, synonyms for POWER are usually given as force, energy, strength, and might.
If it becomes possible to begin appreciating the large extent of human powers at the species level, it can easily be thought that our species is a power species in essence, activity, productivity, and mental dynamism. In that sense, it can also be thought that the human mind is a vehicle for objectifying the innate powers, the sum of which denotes the extensive scope of the "human potential," and which, so far as yet known, distinguishes the human life form from all other known life forms on the planet Earth. HUMANS ARE OVER-ENDOWED WITH POWERS THEY DON'T USE If even partially appreciated, the large extent of identifiable human powers at the species level clearly points up the fact that our species is over-endowed with respect to survival at the animal level. Indeed, our species does not need so many powers in order to merely survive, and many of the powers are in fact surplus with respect to the goal of mere physical survival. This brings up the question as to why the human species life form should be over-endowed with a surplus of innate powers not really needed for mere biological survival in terrestrial environments. It might seem, then, that the human power species is more designed to exist or coexist with respect to other species that are mind-dynamically equivalent to our own – and in which case our species powers might not constitute a strange surplus, but a primal and appropriate necessity. In the past, many thinkers and researchers have attempted to place the human species within terrestrial contexts having to do with other formative bio-species therein, and with whatever palaeoanthropic "record" can be discovered. This seems a logical process to undertake, and it is, to a certain degree. But, as many critics have noted, that process always requires various kinds of reductionism that can seem meaningful only if the full species-spectrum of human powers is minimalized, avoided, or truncated.
After all, the human species is the only one we know of that not only constructs but also destroys civilizations, this apparently a result of that "particular active property" that remains undefined. THE HUMAN POWER SPECIES If a species IS a power species, then the playing of power games would be one of its principal hallmarks. Here one is talking not only of the physical survival of the strongest and fittest, but of the survival of the most stealthy and clever, and of those who manage to obtain active power over the developmental empowerment potentials of others. One sardonic estimate of our human power species is that a rather large proportion of its generations of individuals wish more than anything else to belong to and survive within the contexts of power games (large or small).
If a power species existed in relationship to some other power species, then to survive, it would have to nurture and enhance its innate powers and externalize them with respect to the power games of other power species.
But if a power species was isolated from other power species, then the odds are that it would introvert its power games within the contexts of its own species.
Something like this of course constitutes the history of our species within the limits of terrestrial contexts. Indeed, human history, so-called, provides the best evidence that the human species is a power species having the demonstrated credentials as such. It should be mentioned, without going into it too deeply, that as long as a power species remains isolated from others, its history of intra-competitive powers games can be extended, without much pause, into its future. Our human power species is clearly isolated in terrestrial terms. But the advent of the real possibility of other "advanced intelligence" species elsewhere in the cosmos made its appearance in the last half of the twentieth century. It is already broadly assumed that "We are not alone," as it is put, even though the implications, facts, and knowledge involved are cloaked in serious and nervous secrecy and cover-ups. THE SUPPRESSION OF HUMAN POWERS ON BEHALF OF HUMAN POWER GAMES Meanwhile, back at our isolated terrestrial ranch, our power species plays power games within itself, and one clearly identified game is to achieve power over the empowerment of others.
The best method, having many tested historical precedents, for achieving power over the others is to keep knowledge and information about power, human powers, and empowerment as unavailable as possible. As discussed in Volume I of this series, this activity, on-going over time, has brought into existence a rather enormous covert depowerment industry, the principal machinations of which are so clever and subtle that few realize it exists – or can accept that it does.
In the contexts of those two bigger pictures, then, the picture of THE INDIVIDUAL is clearly rather small, even if individuality is considered as having special importance. Thus arises something akin to an enigma or a conundrum, an intricate problem that can be described as follows. Each individual of our species is a carrier of human powers, and is therefore not only important but also valuable.
Because of this conundrum, there are distinctions to be made between (1) empowerment within the contexts of power games and the depowerment industry, and (2) human empowerment overall. It can easily be seen that (1) above will ultimately exclude most individuals, and that (2) can include all individuals. However, (2) above has something to do with not only defeating the on-going machinations of the power games depowerment industry, but also with transcending its many versions at least in vision and awareness. As has been discussed in Volume I, empowerment of any kind is made difficult by the total absence of encyclopedias about power, and especially about the nature and existence of human powers overall.
The most probable reason as to why there is no encyclopedia of human powers was pointed up (in 1746) by the Marquis de Vauvenargues, the French moralist and epigrammatist, who indicated "Consciousness of our powers augments them.”
Can empowerment be as simple as that? Perhaps not. But in the gross absence of information and knowledge about our powers, becoming conscious of them is a good place to start.
Chapter 2 ♦ Versions of Power and Empowerment
THERE ARE many versions of power, and so there will also be many ideas, whether real or imagined, about empowerment. Thus, the worldwide panorama of power and empowerment is altogether composed of an abundance of contrasting concepts and vast heaps of different kinds of information.
Even so, there ARE three factors within the confusing morass that are certain, permanent, and unarguable:
AS already mentioned, among many other gems of thought, the French writer Luc de Vauvenargues (1715-1747) indicated that becoming conscious of our powers augments them – AUGMENT meaning, of course, "to enlarge or increase, especially in size, amount, or degree." In this, he illuminated the distinction between being conscious or non-conscious of our powers at the group and individual levels – the direct implication being that remaining non-conscious of our powers does not augment them. Indeed, one usually cannot deal or work with whatever one is non-conscious of. And so, in any first instance of empowerment, one must become conscious of what one's innate powers actually are. In a larger and more encompassing reality, one must also become consciously aware of (B) and (C) above – PLUS one other all-important factor. This is the factor of social and societal control not only of power, but also of empowerment itself.
As most realize, the very many versions of power and empowerment can be found along a scale ranging from the stupid to the enlightened, with real and/or empty configurations in between. Even so, any given version of power is likely to attract adherents to it, somewhat along the lines implied by the old saying that "birds of a feather flock together." One of the everlasting detriments of this kind of thing is that a given format of power can become more important than the individuals emotionally and intellectually incorporated within it – with the result that over time the individuals themselves, much to their surprise, can be victimized by the format. This possibility is not generally noticed at first when a power format is on the upswing. When the power format fails, its adherents can become power "homeless," sometimes even in tragic and terminal ways.
Although this can be interpreted as being rather depressing, it is meaningful regarding the contents and objectives of this volume, which have to do with the more happy and exciting prospect of empowerment of the individual as such. The foregoing scenario brings into question what the individual actually is with respect to power and empowerment.
The two points made above signify something that is hardly ever brought to light – that it is far easier to achieve a guise of empowerment within the contexts of some kind of power format one might enter into than it is to empower self as a discrete individual. HYPNOTIC QUALITIES OF POWER There is yet another aspect that can be added to the first two mentioned above. Many have probably become aware of this aspect, even though it tends not to be openly discussed. There are a number of topics that overall exude certain hypnotic qualities on a big-time scale – and power, of course, is almost certainly the preeminent of these. Other such topics are sex, money, betrayal, destruction, and, not the least of them, mind-control. Why, exactly, those topics have the hypnoid-like fascination and allure they do is open for further discussion (in Volume III forthcoming.) Certainly one can realize that they are powerful elements, especially when dynamically used in combined formulas for fiction and moviemaking.
The purpose here for mentioning the real existence of such hypnotic qualities having "high energy" is that many other human qualities cannot hold a candle to them. For example, the qualities of positive creativity and enlightenment, and especially of enlightened power, are considered deadbeats against the "power" of the more hypnotic qualities. The reason for mentioning the hypnotic qualities at this point has again to do with how the individual, as such, can be considered or defined. Those hypnotic qualities evoke mass and massive responses among our species as a whole, whether as adjuncts of power or not. It is certain that most might interpret, in some full part, their relationships with others via some choice among those qualities. But, with some exceptions, those qualities are obviously downloaded from some kind of mass consciousness – against which the concept of the individual becomes at least somewhat blurred. Indeed, some formats of power seem deliberately to blur the issues involved, largely because a blurred "individual" consciousness is more responsive to power controls. SELF-POWER IS INCORPORATED IN THE HUMAN SPECIES GENOME While the foregoing discussions involve rather tough issues, the issue of "individual empowerment" IS a tough one.
Although most do not pay much attention to the fact, our human species actually comprises a wondrous and awesome genome of bio body, mind, energies, and innate powers. Indeed, as already mentioned, our species as a whole possesses powers far in excess of those ordinarily used or are nurtured into functional activity. This clearly means that our species is, of all things, over-endowed with regard to mere physical survival on the planet Earth. While it is accepted that each individual downloads from the combined genes of a mother and a father, in better actuality all humans download from our species genome, which is abundantly equipped with powers of all kinds. This is then to acknowledge that each individual is a specimen of our species – and that each specimen somehow carries a working copy of the genome itself. If this were NOT the case, the genome could not reproduce itself via born individuals, and the species based on the genome would become extinct. After birth, and at the species level, the individual is expected to survive in the genome sense, for otherwise the individual need not be born. Since recorded antiquity, all factors that assist in or equate to this survival have always been referred to as powers, or via equivalent terms in different languages. Our present concept of powers has lost a very important nuance that used to be incorporated in earlier times.
And, indeed, a power that does not become dynamic and energetic is a useless one – even though there is a latent copy for it in the genetic background of each individual. If the abundance of human powers does not automatically suggest as much, this species-wide, heritable dynamism trait is surely one of the first clues that our species is a fully equipped power species, and is MEANT as one by the genome itself. Beyond the foregoing considerations, our species is a collectivizing social one, and so what is considered as survival ends up depending on whatever the reality boxes of different social arrangements and orders see and ordain as such. REALITY BOXES One now wonders what a reality box consists of. The phrase is actually of rather recent vintage, coming into increasing usage only during the last fifty years of the twentieth century.
For example, the remarkable English artist and poet William Blake (1757-1827), pointed up the following in his book THE MARRIAGE OF HEAVEN AND HELL (1790):
This "cavern," to be sure, equates to what today can easily be called a reality box – with the possible emendation that some reality boxes don't have too many "chinks" or have none at all. In any event, the existence of reality boxes is real. Everyone has them, and so in one sense at least, the prospect of empowerment can be considered a battle of reality boxes. This includes one's own, as well as all others of them. As is commonly understood, social orders quickly erect generic formats of power structures, which can properly be referred to as societal reality boxes. Any in-depth examination of power therefore has two options. An examination of the important aspects regarding the distribution of societal power within typical power structures, which has been undertaken in Volume I. And thenceforth an examination (in this Volume II) of the fundamental powers innate within our species, copies of which are encoded into each individual, whether or not each realizes as much. That individuals might not realize the full scope of their innate powers is, in some absolute sense, NOT their fault. The fault is with the societal phenomena regarding the always-unequal distribution of collective power outlined in Volume I. REALITY BOXES VS SELF-POWER Almost everyone appreciates the fact that individuals are comprised of biophysical bodies each of which is separate from all others.
But when individual minds begin to share and adapt to given information packages and frames of reference, they become copy-like or clone-like with each other.
Each individual, therefore, is not only a separate biophysical body, but is also a walking, talking, reality box having frames of reference that might not be as individual as one might think. There are three very good reasons for addressing these issues before entering into the text ahead. Reality boxes that are mentally shared make it largely possible to categorize and compartmentalize individuals into various groups, into various social strata and echelons, and into various levels of meaningful or non-meaningful empowered or depowered status.
For some decades now, it has been understood that the first of the fundamental frames of reference that are basic to reality boxes are formatted and undergo bio-mental lockdown at about the age of seven – when the physical bio-body undergoes very powerful glandular changes in preparation for forthcoming physical and mental maturation. Thereafter, additional frames of reference can be incorporated, but usually only if they are more or less consistent with those that have already undergone lockdown. Additionally, the lockdown will lock out information and frames of reference that are not consistent. Whenever frames of reference are acquired, mentally duplicated, and locked in, they tend to subside into the subconscious wherein they "work" in some sort of autonomic way that is not yet completely understood. The whole of this kind of thing then constitutes how reality boxes become SET – "set" in this case meaning "settled, fixed, prescribed, determined, persistent, reluctant to change, obstinate, immovable, and rigid." Although the four points discussed above might be difficult to format in one's mind, it is common experience that one can look around and easily recognize the existence of fixed reality boxes IN OTHERS. And indeed, as will gradually become apparent in the text ahead, recognizing fixed reality boxes in others is one of the most fundamental launch points for self-empowerment. LEARNING TO RECOGNIZE REALITY BOXES If it is considered that individuals have reality boxes, and that these might have something to do with influential limits of their awareness regarding self-empowerment, then two questions must emerge:
Well, one cannot usually perceive the limits of one's own reality boxes. But there is one way to activate cognitive realization of the nature of reality boxes – to set about observing those not of self, but of others.
Observing the reality boxes of others, however, is an entirely different and much easier matter, one quite astonishing, amazing, and wondrous. The foregoing is just one suggestive way of opening the concept that individuals are not JUST individuals. They are also walking, talking reality boxes – each of which can best discriminate only in accord with how their reality boxes have become formatted and set. One of the first steps toward empowerment therefore requires recognition of reality boxes per se, especially with respect to others, and, where possible, examining them for their constituents.
Chapter 3 ♦ Reality Boxes and Empowerment Maps
EVERYONE POSSESSES some kind of reality box, and that this IS so really needs to be accepted by anyone interested in power and empowerment. As it is, people in general accept the idea of reality boxes, but perhaps under some other frame of reference – for example, how one's head is wired, what one's mindset consists of, or whether one is playing with a full deck or not. If groups of individuals possess similar reality boxes, then there is not much interest in them. But various kinds of interest, from marginal to highly dramatic, might arise when different reality boxes are encountered, especially if they are strategically different or downright incompatible. Most interest in reality boxes usually focuses on what is in them, if such can be perceived and brought to light. This kind of interest is fair enough, especially with regard to mundane and average affairs. But there are certain areas of life in which what is MISSING OF ABSENT in reality boxes is far more important than what is in them.
Those whose reality boxes contain little or no knowledge of empowerment faculties and methods constitute easy herds for power manipulators and managers. This kind of thing (discussed at length in Volume I) equates to the so-called status quo among most societal power structures that have dominion, influence, and control over the bodies, minds, and economic and educational assets and potentials of the many. Thus, the principal problem with respect to empowerment is not what is in reality boxes, but what is missing from them in terms of information and knowledge.
There are two factors about reality boxes that are seldom touched upon, largely because the boxes are usually experienced and perceived as fixed in nature. First, reality boxes are usually identified by the information they contain, which is translated into behavior and attitudes that can be recognized, and which can be judged, accepted, or rejected by the reality boxes of others
These configurations can indeed exist in long-term, fixed states or conditions. But the configurations can, and will, reconfigure if and when new information is encountered – providing the information is SENSED and FELT as viable, pro-survival, and additive to the energizing of empowerment and self-power. How this will take place at the individual level is difficult to say or establish. Based on in-depth historical evidence, one thing is for sure: MIND will probably not reconfigure its reality boxes all that much, simply as the result of mere intellectual exercise – because, on average, intellectual data alone does not predict eventual outcomes. This may be difficult to grok at first. However, sense can be made if we think of reality boxes not only as a collection of information and knowledge, but as a mind MAP, or, even better, as a deep-mind map. Indeed, mind does not deal too well with random or confused bits of information or knowledge, unless it is possible to arrange, organize, and juxtapose the bits into a bigger picture or a more encompassing scenario. In any event, that mind organizes information, for better or worse, can hardly be argued.
As discussed in Volume I, the easiest and best way to ensure depowerment is to prevent effective information about empowerment and power from being adequately organized and mapped. It is quite certain that ensuring and perpetuating depowerment of the many is in fact one of the basic strategies of societal dominion of power by the few. Based on the foregoing considerations, empowerment (or, perhaps, re-empowerment) at the individual level requires not only information about empowerment, but also various kinds of maps that organize the otherwise random information into a bigger whole. As will become more evident in the chapters ahead, the power to make maps of anything and everything is clearly an innate human power. Indeed, maps activate the innate powers having to do with making bigger-picture sense of anything. TWO MAJOR METHODS OF ORGANIZING KNOWLEDGE It is now useful to point up that there are two historical and major methods that can be used to examine and study phenomena, information, and knowledge. These have traditionally been referred to as the Western and the Eastern methods. The WESTERN method starts with smaller pictures, isolating their bits and pieces and parts, and then attempting to erect a bigger picture or a larger totality.
The EASTERN method starts with a bigger picture, and then attempts to discover the bits and pieces and parts that fit within it.
Both methods have their strong and weak points, and in the past various debates have gone on as to which is more productive.
Innate powers cannot exist within the individual unless they first exist within the species. This is almost the same as saying that innate powers download from the species level into the level of individuals, whether multiple or singular. So, although individuals like to think in personal terms about THEIR powers and THEIR empowerment, when and if empowerment begins to unfold within them it will do so within the bigger-picture power contexts around them. INDIVIDUAL EMPOWERMENT AS INCREASE OF POWER CAPACITY AND DYNAMISM The idea of individual empowerment carries the nuance of increase of power capacity and dynamism. And so, as with the Western method, the examination of diverse bits and pieces that might contribute to the increase is justified. But in the end, all diverse bits and pieces are parts of a bigger map or a larger system, and information about these is as important as is any individual idea of what empowerment consists of. The bigger maps or systems are made up of bits and pieces, of course. But without the map one may not know where and how to fit together the bits and pieces into the larger capacity and dynamism. If an encyclopedia of human powers did exist, it would constitute a map of them. In one sense, then, this volume needs to be map-like. In a companion sense, it is also a beginning encyclopedia of human powers – to which others now and in future need to contribute.
Chapter 4 ♦ Three Major Categories of Empowerment and Power
OBSERVATION OVER time and in-depth will gradually reveal that there are at least three major categories of information about power and empowerment.
Social and societal power activities collect around the highly hypnoid-like idea that power consists of control, influence, and authority by the few over the many others who then exist in this or that state of physical and mental subservience.
There are many idealizing and utopian concepts about empowerment that seek to diminish and to ignore the importance of societal power phenomena and activities.
Once THIS is brought to light, the reason why so much is hidden is quite understandable. If the few are to have societal power over the many, then the many must somehow be kept in some kind of depowered condition.
WHAT human powers consist of, especially at the species and at the individual levels, altogether constitutes one of the three major categories that can be identified as such.
Beyond the two categories just mentioned, there exists a major category that deserves several descriptions from different points of view, and which, overall, is most invisible.
There may be other important and major categories of power and empowerment. But the categories of societal powers, individual powers, and harmonic powers among individuals do exist.
Chapter 5 ♦ The Vitalization of Empowerment
THERE ARE many factors that contribute to the overall emergence and unfoldment of empowerment.
First, anything that is made up of multiple factors cannot be understood or grasped in one swoop of intellectual excitement, especially if the factors exist outside of one's reality box.
Second, the multiplicity makes it difficult to know where to start the one-by-one identification process.
In any event, power is always a relationship between what is inside and outside of any given individual reality box. And so one must look outside of self in order to identify factors that, so to speak, can call forth empowerment from within. AN ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF POWER With the two basic problems of the multiplicity now pointed out, it might be seen that the essential nature of power provides a very good clue as to where one might start.
Indeed, anything that is energy-less and force-less can hardly be considered as power – and this equally applies to whatever is inside and outside of reality boxes. Thus, any such lessness can logically be identified as conditions of depowerment. VITAL – VITALITY – VITALIZATION To proceed beyond this start point, it is necessary to consider the definitions of the term VITAL.
However, the term entered English many centuries ago, at about 1386. At that time it referred to "that immaterial force or principle which is present in living beings or organisms and by which they are animated and their functions maintained."
During the twentieth century, the importance of these older definitions was diminished, largely because the modern sciences were unable (and are still unable) to explain how animate life becomes animated. There are certainly difficulties regarding how animated life is to be understood as coming into existence. But there is no problem at all in comprehending the concept of to DE-VITALIZE – i.e., "to deprive of life or vitality," and which, of course, is certainly the direct equivalent of DE-POWERMENT. One of the implications of this is that at least a minimal working knowledge of depowerment is as important as knowledge of empowerment. This becomes rather clear if one considers the plus and minus energies involved between vitalized and devitalized powers.
Chapter 6 ♦ Recognition of Empowerment Processes
OPENING DOORS of perception into matters that have never been identified before might be difficult at first. And so the two factors discussed in this chapter might seem challenging at first, but only because one is not already familiar with them. The first has to do with the fact that human powers have never been described as a spectrum that is somehow self-organized. So human powers have hardly ever been discussed in any organizing way, largely because doing so would contribute to more extensive knowledge about them. The second factor is quite subtle. It consists of an attempt to show that human powers recognize empowerment information – and do so whether one is aware of it or not, and even if one is consciously unaware of the existence of the powers. While this might seem far out at first, it is generally understood that a lot of mind-dynamic activities do take place without our being consciously aware of them. And indeed, becoming consciously aware of those otherwise invisible activities constitutes one of the proverbial ladders of empowerment. One of the principal problems involved here has to do with how to define "empowerment information."
The most common idea about information is that it does exist, that it is available, that it is discoverable, that it just sits around until the conscious intellectual part of a human mind encounters it and then decides to utilize it or not.
In keeping with this broadly shared idea about information, it can thus be thought that an information or knowledge package is inert, and stays at rest unless or until it is consciously discovered and acted upon. However, as many past and present societal mind-conditioners and disinformation agents have long realized, information always IMPLIES something, and between the information and what it implies is always motion of some kind.
SURVIVAL VS REALITY BOXES The limitations of reality boxes of course can curtail perception of implications, especially at the conscious or surface levels of awareness and socially conditioned intelligence.
A question now emerges, one that seems never to have been asked before. Can human organisms recognize empowerment information in ways that transcend the limits of their reality boxes? The surprising answer is Yes – but the answer rests upon grounds that are so extremely subtle that few have recognized them, even when dwelling amid them. Backing up for a moment, it is worthwhile wondering if the human species throughout its duration has failed to accumulate what might be called a reservoir of empowering information-plus-implications. It can be demonstrated that no encyclopedias of power and empowerment have ever seen the light of day.
It is quite possible to think that wisdom, or anything akin to it, is more empowering than, say, non-wisdom, ignorance, or depowerment, and which are also manufactured within power-control social systems. And so yet another question emerges. Where and how has wisdomlike, hence empowering, information escaped the depowerment mechanisms of social power-control structures? THE NATURE OF APHORISMS An APHORISM is defined as "a concise statement of a principle, a terse formulation of a truth or sentiment." But the functional nature of aphorisms is to encapsulate specific information-plus-implication packages that are so apparent that they can transcend the limits of all kinds of reality boxes.
Indeed, if aphorisms do not cross time and transcend lesser particulars of our socio-intelligent species, then they are useless in the same way that inert information is. WHAT BECOMES UNDERSTOOD BECOMES USEFUL Included in the concise aphorisms presented at the front of this book is one by the American essayist, John Jay Chapman (1862-1933), pointing up that "There are plenty of people to whom the crucial problems of their lives never get presented in terms they can understand." It is quite clear that matters of human powers and empowerment are usually "crucial problems."
It is something of a habit, installed culturally, that people think they need to discover NEW stuff in order to increase understanding.
This concept is certainly functional IF the new is really new – which is to say, having never before appeared within the contexts of human knowledge packages.
Even so, the crucial problems of power and empowerment ARE problems of discovery, not of the new, but of the socio-human dynamics of something that is very old – power and control of it. One of the great literary figures of the modern age, the French novelist Marcel Proust (1871-1922), produced a concise aphorism that is relevant to discovery in general: "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." With this, Proust merely echoed a discovered wisdom package of many others before him, that whether the new or the old is involved, the "eyes" will in the end determine what is seen or not.
APHORISMS and RELEVANCE As mentioned earlier, average dictionaries will indicate that an aphorism is "a terse and concise formulation of a truth or sentiment." This, however, is a rather weak description for something that gets perpetuated through centuries of fluctuating history and across cultural barriers. A more intimate examination of the nature of aphorisms (and of maxims and adages as well) can reveal that they are concise formulations not so much of truth or sentiment, but as references to factors that are RELEVANT to the on-going human condition through time and centuries.
If over decades and centuries the recognizable relevancy of aphorisms transcend time and reality boxes, then it becomes something of a seminal question as to what, exactly, it is in human consciousness that perceives the relevancy.
These considerations bring up another factor having to do with why the relevancy of aphorisms should be recognized in the first place.
The modern definitions given to the term RELEVANT refer to "bearing upon the matter at hand; pertinent; implying a traceable, significant, logical connection." But the term RELEVANT is taken from the Latin RELEVARE, defined as "to raise up," while in English the term RAISE is essentially defined as "to awaken, arouse, or incite."
Chapter 7 ♦ The Spectrum of Human Powers
HUMAN POWERS obviously belong to the human organism. However, it is not understood very well what that organism actually consists of in any sense that can be thought of as complete. There are many influential ideas about this matter, but they hold water only if numerous aspects of the human organism are ignored or not incorporated.
One of those mysteries pertains to the human powers, with questions still outstanding about why and how they exist, and where they can be incorporated into an overall structural schematic.
NO MAPS OF HUMAN POWERS It is thus that there are no maps of human powers that are clearly identified as such. And so it is difficult to consider how they consist together in the scope of something that might be referred to as an inclusive power package. It is because of this that although human powers can be discussed in words, they cannot be pictured in overall ways that equate to something akin to an anatomical chart. If one spends a great deal of time trying to study what the human consists of, one can discover that about the only factor altogether agreed on is that the human is an organism.
With respect to human powers, and to many other human factors as well, the concept of the human as an organism needs to be restored to its essential importance, and by doing so it becomes possible to conceptualize them as an inclusive power package. DEFINITIONS OF ORGANISM In most languages, the term ORGANISM is understood to have two important definitions:
It seems to be generally thought that the definitions of the term derive from the words ORGANIC and ORGAN, and which is the case in part. But the definitions are more derived from the terms ORGANIZE which is generally defined as:
The link between ORGANIC and ORGANIZE is that all life forms demonstrate internal organizations of parts that constitute their interdependent whole – and WITHOUT WHICH those life forms could not survive or even exist. Thus, although it can be thought that an organism is a life-form package, it is, by necessity, an organized package – and if it were not organized, then Zippo and down the tubes it goes. This is somewhat like saying that although a life form can exist, or learn to exist, amid chaos, it will NOT exist (for very long) if its internal organization becomes unorganized to any relevant degree. With regard to human organisms, it is clear that they possess innate powers, if only in potential, inactive, or not consciously realized states. It is quite possible to assume that if human organisms did NOT have innate powers, then they could not exist as the life forms they are. If it is accepted that human organisms possess innate powers, then it must follow that matters relevant to their organization AND disorganization are important and significant. And it must therefore follow that ANY realizing sense of organization of powers must be better than no sense of it at all. There must be many ways to conceptualize, discuss, and diagram, how human powers are organized – and which conceptualizing simply refers to what powers do exist, consciously enumerating them, and then realizing how they are interconnected (or "wired") throughout the human organism entire. There are only two real problems involved here:
At the all-inclusive species level, and thus with respect to all its produced individuals, humans cannot have just a few discrete, non-interacting powers, for if they did then all human things would be more simple and straightforward than they obviously are. It is thus that one can assume to have a large number of powers (known or unknown), and if one undertakes to make lists of them, it soon becomes apparent that at least many of the powers interact with each other.
One useful way to conceptualize the whole of human powers is via the definition of a SPECTRUM:
The use of the spectrum metaphor facilitates a bigger picture thinking about human powers as constituting both separate powers, but which, when needed, can blend together in some kind of continuous range or sequence of empowerment.
VOLUME II - PART II ♦ UNIDENTIFIED PARTS OF MIND
Chapter 8 ♦ Maps of the Mind
IT IS commonly understood that mind has "parts." This is to say that the mind is composed of various activities and functions, some of which can be recognized as different enough so as to take on part-like distinctions. Dividing the mind into various parts has a long and often complicated history stretching back into antiquity. Tracing this history from various sources makes for fascinating reading and can be informative, and those interested in empowerment might thereby add important elements to their reality boxes. One convenient source for such maps is Charles Hampden-Turner's 1981 book entitled MAPS OF THE MIND : CHARTS AND CONCEPTS OF THE MIND AND ITS LABYRINTHS. Some sixty maps are neatly drawn together in this very elegant book. This book is quite wonderful, to be sure, and well worth taking time to study its contents. However, human powers, innate or otherwise, are not mentioned with respect to any of the sixty maps portrayed in the book.
Perhaps one lesson that can be drawn in this respect is that the mind and its parts can be formatted in different ways, while the formats themselves can undergo constant recombination.
Most people, on average, might have but little awareness of maps, or models, of the mind, especially so many as sixty of them.
It can be thought that INFORMATION is of extreme importance to a species having extensive intelligence, and if this were not so, then it is difficult to discern the purpose of having intelligence in the first place.
It is also possible to consider that one's plus or minus power status is more or less commensurate with information that does or does not exist in one's reality boxes. Thus, ANY information about empowerment that can be added into reality boxes is better than adding no such information at all. The intelligent mind, and all that is relative to it, constitutes perhaps the most extremely complicated factor in human life overall.
Many of these double confusions work to derail concepts of empowerment.
Indeed, parts of mind that have something to do with power and empowerment at the individual level are almost certainly to be shrouded in confusions because of any number of social control reasons described at length elsewhere in this series. Chapter 9 ♦ The On-going Confusion of Powers-Mind-Intelligence
IT IS possible to think that human powers, human mind, and human intelligence have something to do with each other.
Any approach to empowerment, however, must include some kind of discussion along these lines, if only because a bigger picture of empowerment must eventually include knowledge packages about mind-dynamic functions that lead to empowerment. THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF HUMAN POWERS IN PRE-MODERN TIMES If one studies the history of concepts of the mind, it will certainly be discovered that our pre-modern predecessors did not think of it via the all-encompassing thing-in-itself concept that became so socially prevalent only during the last third of the nineteenth century. Furthermore, a study of how powers were viewed in the pre-modern past shows that although the existence of mind was considered important enough, individuals were seldom judged by their minds. They were judged by the powers they were manifesting or not manifesting. In this sense, it seems that minds took second place with respect to powers being manifested, and that it was in fact powers manifesting that were of major concern for any number of important reasons. If this is meditated upon as calmly as possible, it is possible to discern that although all individuals can be thought of as having a mind, there are actually great distinctions between those manifesting powers and those not doing so. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN MIND AND POWERS One such distinction has to do with the rather visible reality that those manifesting powers are something to be dealt with and taken seriously.
And something like this is STILL in process of happening just about everywhere. Although the issues of human powers have been deeply submerged beneath otherwise scientific, philosophic, and psychological concepts of mind, individuals are STILL not recognized and judged by the minds they have, but by their overall power status. One identifiable reason for this is the common knowledge that one can have a so-called brilliant mind, but have no power. In fact, a brilliant mind sans power is just a "nerd," or something similar in different lingoes. It is also generally understood, at least somewhat, that those demonstrating this or that kind of power might not have too much MIND going for them. Even so, such will attract great attention. For more clarity here, a society based upon powers manifesting in this or that individual is clearly a society different from one based in the idea that everyone has a mind. The principle reason is that minds NOT extending and actualizing their powers can be thought of as powerless, and as such do not need to be as seriously considered as those who do manifest them. As pre-modern times developed into what we recognize as modern times, it gradually became possible to study and research the human mind without incorporating research into the nature of human powers – and especially not incorporating any empowerment research that might focus on activating powers within individuals.
A very large archive of mind research came into existence, especially during the twentieth century, and since that archive IS large and extensive, it also seems authoritative. So it is possible to think of it as more important than almost anything else.
The basic reason for going into all this is that most individuals will automatically assume that powers and minds are not only somehow relative to each other. One might even assume that concepts of mind are more important than the actual existence of human powers. In any event, assuming a connection between mind and powers is one thing. Trying to find out what the mind IS, is another matter – one vastly complicated by, believe it or not, the vast number of definitions and models of MIND. A THREE-PART MODEL OF MIND CIRCA 1250 A.D. If one consults the Oxford Dictionary of the English language, it will be revealed that definitions for MIND, together with permutations, number over seventy.
The term MIND (MYND) entered English (and other European languages) at about the year 1000. While its derivation is not certain, that it principally referred to "memory" is quite clear. In its original sense, it might have also had, and soon came to have, combined nuances of "to think, to remember, to intend." The term INTEND is taken, via Old French, from the Latin INTENDERE, basically meaning "to stretch out or forth, extend, strain, expand, increase, intensify, purpose, endeavor, assert." As this bit of nomenclature research establishes, what came to be called the MIND was early divided up into three principal parts: the "to think" part, the "to remember" part, and the "to intend" part. It is quite probable that people at the beginning of the second millennium were not too stupid, and that they would recognize that the "to think" and "to remember" parts were passive and harmless enough, but that the "to intend" part was entirely a different matter.
If one traces the nomenclature developments relevant to this three-part concept of mind, then it is possible to discover that although the passive parts "to think" and "to remember" are interesting enough, the active "to intend" part demands special treatment – mainly involving how to control and contain it. And the best way to achieve such control and containment, in the eyes of societal power managers at least, is to not permit any knowledge packages to accumulate about that part – for the intend part clearly has too much to do with power and empowerment. Thereafter, definitions of the mind can otherwise become very numerous on behalf of examining the nature of the two passive parts, and this multiplicity of definitions was naturally extended into the proliferations of twentieth century psychologies. NUMEROUS MODERN DEFINITIONS OF MIND The very numerous modern definitions of mind have caused many to observe that although psychology has traditionally been defined as the science that deals with mental activities, no commonly agreed-upon definition of mind has yet come forth.
Even so and overall, as of 1967 one definition for mind seems broadly to have been accepted as the most important one – that MIND is "the organized totality of psychological processes which enables the individual to adapt to and interact with his environment."
There cannot be too much argument with this definition, largely because adapting to environments obviously reveals the existence of the human power to do so. But it can be pointed up in order to challenge this limited definition, that mind exhibits other compelling phenomena in addition to merely adapting to whatever.
Although it can be admitted that such adaptations do take place, they do not at all reflect the "organized totality of psychological processes" inherently and potentially available to each human individual For example, it is entirely possible to think that mind could adapt to the bigger scope of its own powers IF that scope was nurtured outside and independent of the lenses of given environments and circumstances, and which clearly demand passive conformity rather than intentional empowerment. THE MOST FAVORED TWO-PART MODEL OF MIND DURING THE TWENTIETH CENTURY As will be elaborated ahead, many modernist ideas of mind abounded during the twentieth century.
Within the contexts of this two-part model, everything else about the mind could be considered as phenomena housed in, emanating from, or explained by one of those parts.
Even though the phrase "powers of mind" has been in use for several centuries, they are not attributed to either of the two parts. In discoverable fact, this topic is not only absent in conventional mind studies, but is roughly derided if it is introduced – especially with regard to "subliminal powers of mind." The matter of human intelligence cannot be avoided altogether, in that having intelligence has for so long been extolled as one of the greatest hallmarks of our species.
In any event, in spite of its apparent two-part simplicity, this whole affair is so complicated that it might be passed over altogether (as many writers do). But empowerment and mind and intelligence obviously have something to do with each other, and this relationship is, in some sense, a bigger picture of some kind. THE CONCEPT OF "PARTS" OF THE MIND Like definitions of mind, definitions of intelligence and powers are fraught with uncertainties and unknowns. But the definition of the term PART is quite definite and certain and is defined as:
The implication of this definition is that if a part is missing or is non-functioning, then the whole itself must begin altering toward non-functioning. Chapter 10 ♦ The Problem of Knowing What Intelligence Is
IF THERE is any interest in doing so, one can discover that some individuals think they cannot accumulate empowerment because their intelligence is insufficient or inadequate for that purpose.
Furthermore, this limited kind of idea about intelligence is broadly installed and shared via socio-cultural conditioning processes – largely because it seems to legitimize the familiar power structure distinctions between the more powerful, who are thought of as more intelligent, and the less powerful, who are assumed to be less intelligent. In better reality, however, this is merely some kind of sociological propaganda – in that examinations of power structures often reveal that the powerful may not really be all that intelligent, while many of the presumed powerless are more so. THE CONTROL OF WHAT INTELLIGENCE IS THOUGHT TO BE As already mentioned, one of the primary hallmarks of our species is that it possesses intelligence. Another hallmark of our species, one less emphasized as such, is that it formats power structures that are more beneficial to the few and less than beneficial to the many
The end result of this history so far is that what the essence or nature of intelligence IS has not yet been determined, and those attempting to do so are still at odds and embattled among themselves. What has happened, however, is that certain ideas about the nature of intelligence have caught on, especially during recent modernist times. Those ideas have not only been accepted into general educational and academic processes, but various kinds of influential social programs have been built upon them. It now transpires (as this book is being put together) that the authenticity of the influential modernist concepts is being challenged. And so the modernist ideas of what intelligence IS are themselves undergoing stress, crisis, and confusion. Details of this stress and crisis can be found in several current sources; among which is a book entitled THE MAKING OF INTELLIGENCE (1999), by Ken Richardson. Richardson's book is very interesting and easy enough to read, and also reveals a great deal about how intelligence has been considered.
THE NATURE OF INTELLIGENCE AND THE NATURE OF EMPOWERMENT One of the first difficulties in grasping the nature of intelligence hinges on the fact that it has traditionally been mis-identified as a "capacity" rather than as an innate power, or even as a part of the mind. As indicated in chapter 8, a PART is defined as ONE of the ESSENTIAL portions or integral elements via which something is divided and which together constitute the whole. If, therefore, intelligence is subtracted as a PART of the human mind, it is then to be wondered what the mind would be like without it.
But intelligence is not identified as a part of the mind, but rather as "a capacity," and sometimes as "a faculty." A FACULTY is first defined as "ability, power, a natural aptitude, an abundance," and as "one of the powers of mind formerly held by psychologists to form the basis of all mental phenomena." A CAPACITY is defined as "the ability to hold, receive, store, or accommodate." Implicit in the concept of capacity are the two subsidiary concepts of "maximum capacity" and "minimum capacity." It is certainly clear enough that faculty and capacity are ASPECTS of intelligence, but only if intelligence is defined as an innate power. Otherwise, it would be difficult to see what faculty and capacity are aspects of As earlier discussed, a human power is best defined as an innate, inborn source or means of supplying energy – and which is capable of magnification, of decrease, of being latent and untapped, or of being denergized or depowered. Indeed, the synonyms for POWER are usually given as force, energy, strength, might – all of which can be latent or exerted physically and/or mentally. While it is cumbersome to recount or synopsize the history of ideas about intelligence, it is relatively easy to discover and examine the successive definitions attributed to it. INTELLIGENCE AND UNDERSTANDING Even though the term INTELLIGENCE was not broadly used in English (or in French) until the sixteenth century, it appears to have entered into English at about 1390, and was taken from the Latin INTELEGENTIA which meant "understanding."
By about 1430, however, the definition was amended so as to read: "Understanding as a quality admitting of degree; specifically as superior understanding; quickness of mental apprehension and sagacity." At about 1450, the definition was extended as: "The action or fact of mentally apprehending something; understanding, knowledge, cognizance, comprehension (OF something)."
In any event, the 1430 definition, carrying the distinction of "superior understanding" seems to have served until some point after 1882 after which scientific research of intelligence entered the picture.
Thus, when the term INTELLIGENTSIA came into use (roughly between 1900 and 1914), its meaning was drawn from a Russian word defined as "The class of society to which culture, superior intelligence, and advanced political views are attributed." This indicates that the matter of intelligence (as understanding) had been converted into societal uses and functions, within which the major definition had to do with "the capacity to apprehend facts and propositions and their relations and to reason about them." Well, yes, such is probably an aspect of intelligence. But common observation will reveal that reason and reasoning can take place often in the absence not only of too much understanding, but also the absence of too many facts and proportions. Furthermore, the definition above almost surely requires the interfacing of educational training, the auspices of which have never been equally distributed throughout all social class levels. In any event, one of the early modern "psychological" definitions of intelligence appeared roughly between 1900 and 1920, to wit:
Some version of this modernist definition has held social and cultural sway ever since. And so it is herewith useful to contrast it to the definitions of UNDERSTANDING. In most dictionaries, these are given as:
Anyone interested in empowerment might wish to meditate, at some length, on the definitions of these two terms. Both are applicable to intelligence, of course. But in the end it will be observed that one of the definitions is quantitative, the other being qualitative.
Most sources recounting the more modern history of research into intelligence generally end up indicating that "the concept of intelligence has proved to be so elusive that psychologists often prefer to define it as that which is measured by intelligence tests."
EVOLUTION OF MODERNIST IQ TESTS While no consensus of opinion prevails about what "intelligence tests" actually measure, their use in education has had great practical value. Indeed, throughout most of the twentieth century, IQ tests were conducted and broadly utilized in three categories of social management processes:
During the last two decades of the twentieth century, however, the value and meaning of IQ tests began to undergo strong and eventually devastating criticism via some cutting-edge researchers of intelligence – especially in respect to the usage of intelligence as social ideology. As some researchers have pointed up, intelligence has probably been an active carrier of social ideology for as long as social classes have existed, and the preservation of privilege has remained an ideological imperative. As Ken Richardson (whose book was mentioned earlier) has pointed out, in the nineteenth century Britain underwent renewed stress at home and throughout the Empire regarding the long-enduring concept of "natural inequality," and which stress led "to the invention of the IQ test." According to Richardson, Britain's proponents of "natural inequality" argued strongly that "the minds of the inferior human races could not respond to relations of even moderate complexity," and that "the poor, having thus proved themselves to be "unfit", should be denied all social welfare and normal reproduction, and be allowed to die off." Richardson goes on to point up that the founders of the intelligence-testing movement in the United States and Britain "were mostly strong hereditarians and eugenicists, who saw the IQ test as the key instrument in promoting their cause." One of the functions of IQ tests in societal terms was that they revealed natural, and possibly genetic, differences between those of high and low IQ scores
In that picture, the naturally superior intelligence genetic elite effortlessly ascended to positions of power and privilege in society, while those of naturally inferior intelligence constituted nothing more than a genetic underclass. This gross usage of IQ tests did undergo softening during the 1950s. Even so, many studies have shown how knowledge of low IQ scores has contributed to low selfesteem, and has contributed to reduced aspirations and long-term damage to self-confidence among large populations. Furthermore, debate about IQ testing has contributed to many kinds of social despair about so-called "natural" inferiority, and has produced various kinds of fatalism about the human species in general. INTELLIGENCE AS AN INNATE HUMAN POWER THAT LARGELY REMAINS NON-NURTURED AND UNTAPPED One of the reasons for dragging through the foregoing is to be able to point up several nuances that are never mentioned in connection with the problems of intelligence. It is difficult to see how the human species could continue as such if the majority of individuals possess naturally inferior formats of intelligence. It is far easier to consider that every individual born of the species possesses innate powers of intelligence, but that those innate powers do not undergo societal nurturing. Innate intelligence powers probably require the activation of a number of subsidiary powers in order to function at various levels of awareness and perception, and if some of those subsidiary powers are inactive, then the sum of intellectual power will not function too well. In that sense, it is interesting to consider what intelligence IS, but it is also to be wondered what powers contribute to and enhance its functioning. Chapter 11 ♦ Energies of Mind
PROFOUND THINKERS in the distant and recent past have generally held that the mind is all that counts. One finds it difficult to argue against this. But the statement really could be amended to read that the POWERS of the mind are all that count.
As has been pointed out earlier, power(s) of mind are not considered as a part(s) of the mind. And so there is some small sense of satisfaction in restoring the powers collective (the power spectrum) as an inseparable part of mind.
Like the entire human organism, it is quite clear that the mind is an energy-driven apparatus that needs either the equivalent of "batteries" in order to function, or some manner of deriving energy from wherever it does.
THE POWER PART OF MIND As discussed in Volume I, it is possible that individuals can be selectively educated and socially conditioned so as to become unaware that minds have powers.
In any event, mind inclusive of its powers, is clearly one of the principal factors that must be included with respect to overall emergence and unfoldment of empowerment. THE ENERGY PART OF MIND Most already realize the foregoing, of course. What might not be generally realized is that the idea of mind and its powers is virtually USELESS unless the concepts of vital energy and force are added into it. The idea of mental energy is not unknown, to be sure. What is strange is that mental energy can be thought of as energy expended in thinking activity – but with little or no realization that mind ITSELF is an energy-based "machine," so to speak. This can be somewhat elaborated by suggesting that mind and its powers are vital energy-based systems – and that without the energy basis, the multiple power components of the systems will not function. The exact nature of this energy basis is not at all understood, except that it is at least akin to some kind of electrical activity.
The most amazing factor of all is that mind-energy-powers can be artificially shaped by information-knowledge inputs, and by withholding them. In other words, information-knowledge inputs awaken and unfold energy-mind-powers activity – while, with some few exceptions, an absence of information-knowledge inputs does not. The result of the shaping, of course, more or less equates to social conditioning and resulting reality boxes – and which means that any and all kinds of reality boxes can be formatted depending on knowledge provided or withheld. Chapter 12 ♦ The Subconscious Part of the Mind
AS MENTIONED in chapter 8, while most individuals have not been exposed to too many parts of the mind, there is one part that has achieved wide and even notorious worldwide visibility via books, media, and psychology, and so almost everyone has at least heard of it. This is the SUBCONSCIOUS part, whose existence is generally accepted, but the functions and processes of which are yet a matter of great and on-going debates. One reason for the debates is that the subconscious part seems to have, of all things, powers of its own, many of which are extraordinary when evidence of them can be seen.
The "discovery" of the subconscious constitutes a modern affair mostly focused within the early decades of the twentieth century. The discovery, and expositions of it, caused what can only be called panics in science, sociology, and elsewhere.
To wit: in psychology, especially of the Freudian type, the subconscious is defined as "a transition zone through which repressed material must pass on its way from the unconscious to consciousness."
Of course, subliminal researchers have more impressive definitions for the subconscious, but conventional societal professions contain and curtail these definitions by excluding them and the subliminal researchers from any of the societal realms of authenticity. The term SUBCONSCIOUS was actually coined about 1832 by Thomas de Quincy (1785-1859), who was one of the first to intellectually explore the mind-altering affects of opium. By 1882, two non-conventional, but slightly contradictory, definitions had been established for the term:
And, it might be added, not completely outside the range of sensing and experiencing as many have come to realize. In any event, one can examine numerous clinical definitions of subconscious without encountering too much information about what it DOES. Very good short descriptions of what the subconscious does were included by the writer Robert Collier in his book THE SECRET OF THE AGES, published in 1948, but who mostly quotes sources published late in the nineteenth century.
As Collier wrote,
One of the most interesting aspects of this description of the subconscious part of the mind is the clear reference to the powers of telepathy, intuition, and clairvoyance. These powers are of course lopped off and deleted from most modern maps of the mind, largely because societal power structures would rather not encourage ANY knowledge of their existence and have thus propagandized against them throughout the modernist decades. However, as will be discussed shortly, it is now scientifically understood that the human body possesses receptors for telepathic information, as well as for other kinds of information having very distant sources. Chapter 13 ♦ The Conscious Part of Mind and Its Surface Energies
WHATEVER PARTS the mind may or may not have, it does have an aspect referred to in modernist times as the conscious part. It is awkward to discuss this part because the term CONSCIOUSNESS is now used in so many contexts that it has become ambiguous and confusing.
Nevertheless, the conscious part of the mind can be identified more or less precisely because it is generally conceptualized as what one experiences while one is awake. The term CONSCIOUS is taken from the Latin COM + SCIRE which literally means "with + to know" or "with knowing."
In other words, the conscious part of the mind consists of the awake state that everyone automatically utilizes in going about their daily activities the best they can – albeit doing so within the contexts of what they know and what they don't know. There is no doubt that the conscious part of the mind is crucial and of enormous importance. And so it is usually thought of in general as a big part of the mind, perhaps the biggest, and having dominion over all other aspects or parts of the mind. However, it can easily be shown that the conscious part of the mind is its smallest part when compared with the subconscious part that is thought to occupy approximately 90 percent of the entire mind-package. So when individuals make active use only of their conscious mind part, they are using but a fraction of their mind-package. It is important to consider this for a very specific reason.
Furthermore, the conscious part apparently functions, to a large degree anyway, with respect to what it can recognize and become aware of.
As discussed in Volume I, most social and societal frameworks do not in general encourage nurturing of awareness because doing so will begin the processes of empowerment among the subservient masses.
Not all individuals are limited to 10 percent contexts of the conscious awake mind. But many are, even without realizing it, and are content to run on low gear all their lives – to function only in the contexts of surface energies. Chapter 14 ♦ The Strength-of-Power(s) Part of Mind
THERE ARE many hopeful approaches for achieving empowerment, and one of these begins with the idea that one must know what power IS, as a thing-in-itself, before one can begin to develop it in self. This idea of what something is seems logical enough, because it is obviously applicable to so many other endeavors. So there have been many discussions about what power is, and all of which, some of which, or none of which contain pertinent information. For the purposes of this volume, however, it can be observed that whatever power may be, it manifests on a gradient scale ranging from weak to strong, or, perhaps, from inferior to superior. Therefore, the concept of em-powerment (gain of power) is self-suggestive of movement along this scale from a weak power status toward a stronger one.
In a general sense, the question of what power is always involves the situational relationships of the many things and factors among which power manifests on the weak-to-strong scale.
In the sense of the above, then, whatever power is, it must be strong enough to be identified, recognized, and accepted as power. And it is for this reason that the standard dictionary definitions of the word STRENGTH become important.
The standard definitions of strength (and "strong") are usually associated with great or robust physical power, although they are equally applicable to other factors that are inherent in individual human systems, and which are commonly described as "powers." One can refer to physical strength and physical powers, yet the human is not made up of only the physical. Indeed, for a human to be fully considered as human, our species powers of mind must be entered into the picture. While it might seem rather silly to point up this obvious factor, it becomes important in the contexts of depowerment – and which contexts are always as important as those of empowerment. As seen throughout Volume I of this series, powers of mind can be depowered by reducing them into a weakened or dormant state. When, therefore, one thinks in terms of empowerment, one is thinking in terms of shifting powers of mind from their weakened condition into a strengthened state. The best way to depower powers of mind is to keep knowledge of them in a confused or ambiguous state via this or that societal confabulation – even keeping exact descriptions of them in states of "secrecy" so that their nature and functions are inaccessible and cannot be learned about. A full part of this approach to empowerment thus entails learning about what powers of mind actually consist of. This is easy enough to do regarding some of the many factors involved. But there are other factors that are more difficult to identify. There is a "bottom line" here. One cannot empower (strengthen) what one cannot identify. Chapter 15 ♦ The Power Nucleus Part of Mind
MANY WHO feel powerless or relatively powerless can, in some sense at least, feel embarrassed by their condition.
Generally speaking, though, such feelings come about via sources external to the individual, sources that fail to nurture indwelling powers as much as possible in as many as possible. The whole of this constitutes a terribly complex issue. It is also one of those crucial problems that never gets presented in ways that can be understood.
The whole of the foregoing is, of course, a negative issue, with the implication that any suggestive way to correct or change it is to overthrow and pull down the societal power structures involved.
The reason for trolling through the foregoing negative scenario is to establish grounds for pointing up an empowerment factor that is implicit in it, although seldom recognized If individuals did not have innate powers, then it is difficult to comprehend why they should feel their absence.
Generally speaking, and all other factors considered, one cannot feel powerless unless one senses, even if only minimally, that one has innate powers that are there, but are inactive, deadened, or not operational. And in observable fact, one cannot achieve control over the powers of others, unless the others have powers to be controlled.
And it is the foregoing consideration that opens up perception regarding the central topic of this chapter, i.e., what do the powerless sense in general that makes them feel powerless in general? In the first instance here, it is reasonable to assume that the powerless might feel powerless because of installed ignorance about the nature of power, kinds of power, and power machinations in particular, and especially because of the controlled denial of empowerment to them. Certainly, everyone experiencing such things can sense factors inherent in power control systems.
But if the powerless did not sense some power source internal to themselves, then they might feel put upon by external demands, but not necessarily feel powerless of and in themselves. While such may not be applicable in all cases of felt powerlessness, it can be thought that feelings of self-powerlessness occur because one feels that one has power sources within self, even though their activation and development have been thwarted by external factors. In one respect, the powerless do not know what their powers are; otherwise they might not be so powerless.
The concept of a power source is often used without too much exactness. Even so, it automatically transliterates into the concept of an energy source.
It is one of the innate powers of our species, and of all its individuals, to feel the presence of energy (i.e., of potential), and this takes place at several different levels of human sensing systems. But it is also possible to feel feeling without intellectually or consciously being able to identify what the feeling involves in its particulars.
This is the same as saying that the powerless will feel the presence of the energies involved, even though they might not be able to conceptually identify their powers. Indeed, all powers can be recognized as directed or dynamic extensions of the energies fundamentally necessary to effect activations of them. In this sense, although they can be thought of in many different ways, all individuals really do have to be fundamentally thought of as energy modules, or something like that – for if they were to be energy-less, then they would be dead. It is via these considerations that we trip across a great mystery. Human beings are conceptualized via many different images of them, and many different Images of Man have been conceptualized in the past. Whatever the image involved, human beings at base are not only life forms, but also energetic life forms, and this is completely beyond question. Yet, neither the human species nor its downloaded individuals are ever referred to that way, and, most precisely, are NOT conceptualized as energy life entities, or as bio-mind energy life forms. But this is the same as saying that each individual is an innate energy-power entity BEFORE it is possible to become anything else, anything additional, anything evolutional or creational, or anything mutational or transfigurative.
If one meditates upon the essences of the foregoing observations, it can become obvious that some sort of centralizing concept is missing from the Image of Man thing – a concept that introduces the all-important reality of "Man" as energy-power modules. THE ENERGY-POWER NUCLEUS In modern times, the best-known definition of NUCLEUS is the biological one that, with variations, can be found in most dictionaries as:
However, NUCLEUS is taken from a Latin term, defined as "kernel or inner part," into English at about 1702, and was first utilized in astronomy of the time to refer to "the head of a comet." At about 1762, it was given larger definition as:
These definitions are useful – until it comes to wondering just WHY "other parts or things" should become "grouped, collected, or compacted" around "a central part or thing." After all, there has to be some sort of, as it were, organizational logic involved. And, with regard to the modernist biological definition, one might also wonder what is meant by the phrase "vital phenomena."
Just about everyone will know what the term VITAL means, even without consulting dictionaries. The reason is that they usually know it when they see or encounter something that manifests as such. The term VITALITY, however, has three principal definitions that are more directly to the point:
Here again we trip across yet another sensible definition of power – to live, to develop, and enduring and continuing as what is developed. The essence of the foregoing is surely a matter well known, a matter of common sense, even to the degree of being a trite platitude. But it becomes less platitudinous if one begins to wonder if to live, to develop, and to endure can take place in the absence of energy plus powers. VOLUME II - PART III ♦ POSSIBLE ROUTES FOR ENTERING EMPOWERMENT AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
Chapter 16 ♦ Empowerment via Reality Box Retooling
IT IS not possible to estimate what given individuals might think empowerment can consist of, because all individuals have their particular sets of realities. Thus, what works for some may not work for others. In general, empowerment suggests undergoing a change of power functioning on a scale ranging from no or little power to more and more of it. So, no matter what kinds of reality boxes are involved, the concept of change of power functioning is probably relevant across the boards. The word ROUTE refers to "means of access," while PATHWAY is defined as "a track specially constructed for a particular use."
The whole of this can more or less be conceptualized as retooling one's reality boxes by acquiring whatever information packages are needed to energize them more in the direction of arousing energetic power function increases. The principle difficulty in thinking along such lines is the absence of knowledge that individuals have innate powers that can be turned off and on – principally because of influencing situations and circumstances external to them, and which they have adapted to. Such influencing situations and circumstances can be thought of as constituting various kinds of reality boxes, within which exist social criteria regarding what is to be nurtured or not, and which criteria individuals likewise adapt to. And here again arises the issue of socio-cultural reality boxes that influence the reality awareness of so many individuals.
But there are two factors about reality boxes that seem never to have been identified. First, all reality boxes constitute operative mind maps of some kind, even if inadequately formatted. Second, that so many reality boxes can be formatted anywhere, everywhere, and in all times and ages, is entirely suggestive of the inescapable fact that formatting them does constitute a very important human power innate in our species. If such is the case, then that power downloads into each individual of the species as an innate potential, and which potential undergoes influencing and shaping by the specifications and criteria within situations and circumstances external to the individual. This is the same as saying that humans can make reality boxes because they have the innate power to do so.
As will be discussed ahead, reality boxes seem to be formatted almost exactly in pace with whatever each individual becomes both aware and not aware of. And here, finally, is something familiar and recognizable, for it is generally understood and accepted that increases of awareness nurture reality box re-tooling and restructuring. It is in this sense that becoming aware of what one's innate powers are needs to take place before the powers can become active enough to be extended outward into the situations and circumstances external to the individual.
Chapter 17 ♦ Empowerment via the Study of Depowerment
IN THE light of the several foregoing discussions, it would be obvious that any human power transmuted from a turned-off to a turned-on state could be employed within the contexts of societal reality boxes. And, as discussed throughout Volume I, it would also be obvious that pyramidal power structures function best when a number of human powers are turned off within the larger, more inclusive, individual levels. The concepts of "to empower" and "to enable" are largely synonymous, since both mean "to make one able to do something."
TO DISABLE implies interfering with, or sabotaging, something so that it doesn't work too well, or stops working altogether. TO DEPOWER, however, carries the concept of reducing the power, force, energy, strength, or might of something. In this sense, to POWER UP and to POWER DOWN are the more workable contexts regarding human powers. To most individuals, and generally speaking, empowerment means to power up, with very little interest directed toward identifying and realizing what has been powered down, or disabled. In this sense, the assumption seems to be that positive empowerment will automatically negate or overcome negative depowerment – and so there is no apparent reason to examine how depowerment is made to occur. Well, it might come as a surprise to discover that this assumption is entirely consistent with the workings of most societal power structures in which it is very important that the methods and mechanisms of depowerment should NOT be brought to light.
The general axiom here seems to be: empower self if one can, but never look to discover the methods and mechanisms of depowerment. Indeed, even if a few achieve some kind of self-empowerment, it is more important, in the larger societal power sense, that large-scale depowerment remains in place. This guarantees that the masses of the relatively powerless will continue to exist as such, and continue in their subservient condition.
As many writers have noted, power structures are held together by the various mechanisms of social conditioning. For example, John Kenneth Galbraith points this up in his valuable book THE ANATOMY OF POWER (1983).
There may be many ways and means to achieve such populations. One of the major ways is to withhold information and knowledge that might bring about unwanted shifts with respect to the desired receptive, acceptive, and submissive characteristics of the population. It is thus that if one examines the reality boxes of most societal power structures, it can become apparent that few of them contain information and knowledge about the ways and means of depowerment.
There are two reasons why methods and mechanisms of depowerment are hidden. The first, of course, has to do with elements of social conditioning. The second has to do with the fact that the more one knows about depowerment, the more one will know about empowerment. Indeed, if depowerment can be recognized, then it becomes obvious what can be empowered – and this is of major assistance with regard to individual empowerment efforts. Many cannot recognize in self what has been depowered, because if they could do so then empowerment would have already commenced. Beyond recognizing the existence of totally depowered minds, it is far easier at first to observe what powers in particular may have been depowered in others.
Chapter 18 ♦ Empowerment via the Principle of Unfoldment
THE IMPORTANT topic of unfoldment has been presented and discussed throughout chapter 23 of Volume I. The purpose of reintroducing the topic in this chapter is to make a few extensions within the contexts of individual empowerment. As was pointed out, the verb UNFOLD is not usually applied to the contexts of power and empowerment. For convenience here, the term is defined as:
The fourth definition above can be amended to read: "To make clear by gradual disclosure, or by gradual increases of awareness." As discussed earlier, one cannot deal with whatever one is unaware of, and so the aware/unaware equation has a great deal to do with any individual attempt at empowerment. Indeed, it can be said that empowerment is basically a problem involving a contraction or expansion of awareness.
It can easily be recognized that preventing or reducing awareness would work toward turning off perceptions of whatever is involved. And if perceptions are turned off, then numerous affects of power downsizing will naturally occur. It can also be seen that the aware/unaware equation has a great deal to do not only with the expansion and contraction of empowerment, but with whether the principle of unfoldment will be active or inactive in given individuals in given areas of their mental equipment. For more clarity, the principle of unfoldment rests upon the two-fold reality that there is something that can undergo unfoldment, and that the something is naturally prepackaged to unfold. The analogy most frequently utilized for this is the seed which when planted will gradually unfold into the tree – IF nurturing conditions are present for it to do so.
And whatever is prepackaged to grow, expand, etc., is prepackaged with innate prepackaged powers to do so. In this specific sense, unfoldment clearly applies to prepackaged powers that not only can, but also will unfold – IF nurturing conditions are present for doing so.
Alas! As has been laboriously discussed throughout Volume I, human-designed societal power structures and contrived social conditioning systems have something to say about what is and is not to be nurtured. The best way to ensure non-nurturing of something is simply to prevent awareness of it in the first place, either with regard to societal or individual contexts. This is more specifically to state that if individuals can be made unaware of their innate unfoldment powers, then the chances are very good that most of them will mostly remain folded up and hence closed down and turned off – i.e., NOT empowered. This is a good juncture to wonder if individuals are aware not only of what their innate powers are, but if they are aware of the full spectrum of them? There is no encyclopedia of human powers to help one identify anything along these.
One place to begin stimulating empowerment is simply to initiate awareness of the innate unfoldment powers – thereby changing the ratio of aware/unaware equation regarding them.
Chapter 19 ♦ Empowerment via Enhancing Human Senses and Perception
MOST WILL agree that if one cannot perceive or see something, then one doesn't have much of chance of gaining in power with respect to it. To a lesser extent, it is also known that what is not perceived can have power over those who do not perceive it. These two statements seem logical and innocent enough. However, between them are some subtle elements having rather serious implications with regard to empowerment.
This lack of understanding is NOT the fault of the individual.
This teaching of the five physical senses was not so bad in itself – because we do have those senses, and they do lead to perceptions of the physical.
THIS teaching was very bad. It has had tremendous negative consequences and has caused much needless suffering. Indeed, it has distorted almost all ideas of what the human actually is. As it later turned out, senses additional to the five physical ones began to achieve rather grudging scientific recognition during the 1960s. And as scientific developments advanced through the 1970s, these additional senses were ultimately surveyed in the book entitled DECIPHERING THE SENSES: THE EXPANDING WORLD OF HUMAN PERCEPTION, by Robert Rivlin and Karen Gravelle, published by Simon and Schuster in 1984. As the authors put it,
Indeed, no less than SEVENTEEN senses are reviewed in the book, and many more have been discovered since 1984. However, knowledge of our multiple senses has not yet trickled down very actively into the masses of individuals who could benefit from that knowledge, especially those interested in empowerment and gaining in power.
SENSE ORGANS VIS A VIS PERCEPTION The term "senses" is one of those words utilized with what might be called sloppy dexterity – in that we talk of "our senses" without at all realizing too much about them. And so it is worthwhile taking a moment to remind that SENSE ORGANS constitute the basis for senses, in the absence of which we would not have senses to begin with.
In the biological sense, an ORGAN is defined as
This is a delightful definition, especially when it becomes understood that if we don't have sense organs that receive and convey "information" of various kinds, then we will NOT have perceptions. But there is a further important clue available here. If we can think we have sense organs that specialize in various kinds of perceptions, some of which or a lot of which are not active and working, then we might comprehend that we will NOT have their specializing perceptions either. To bring some further illumination upon this issue, one can merely ask if sense organs and their resulting senses can be dumbed-down or "turned off." One cannot usually see this in self, at least at first. But one can look around at others, which the student of empowerment must do for any number of valid reasons to be pointed up ahead. A full part of this matter of sense organs is that while we realize we do sense this or that, we are unaware of the sense organs from which what we sense is coming. THIS, to be sure, is an important matter, as will be seen in chapter 21 ahead. POWER RELATIVE TO PERCEPTIONS One of the situations that can account for lack of the trickling-down of information about our MULTIPLE SENSES is that our senses and perceptions have hardly ever been discussed in the contexts of power and empowerment. This is thus to say that PERCEPTIONS and POWER have never been discussed as adjacent and related to each other. It stands to reason that more perceptions might equate to more empowerment – while it is obvious that less perceptions can equate to larger proportions of depowerment. For additional clarity here, it is worthwhile considering that each individual has a potential perception spectrum of 100 percent.
Additionally, the chances are very good that the 10 percent refers only to the physical 3-dimensional universe – and THEN only to smaller local versions of physicality that one has been mentally educated or programmed to grow up in and fit into. If such is the situation, and if one can grok it, then achieving empowerment on any grand scale is somewhat doubtful. In any event, as reviewed several times in Volume I, something like this constitutes the depowerment "trap" that is so valuable to the powerful few that control, relegate, and do not encourage wide-scale empowerment among the masses. STANDARD DEFINITIONS OF PERCEPTION Most trustworthy dictionaries provide TWO principal, but rather simplified, definitions of PERCEPTION:
In the average dictionary, these two definitions are presented and compressed together with such ease that one might not at first notice the rather large and pregnant distinctions between them. The distinctions come more into view if, for example, one considers perception as related to empowerment. Perceptions derived from 3-dimensional physicality are always important, of course. But with regard to empowerment and power, those kinds of perception characterized via the second definition are obviously more applicable. Via the two contrasting definitions, it would be obvious that two highly different kinds, levels, sets, or spectrums of mind-like faculties are being described:
In passing here, it is worth noting that the English dictionary term PERCEPTION is derived from the Latin PERCEPTUS – the principal meaning of which was something like the modern idea of CONSCIOUSNESS-OBSERVING. However, this definition, while noted, is given as "obsolete" for reasons that escape rational explanation. It is also worth noting that only one synonym is given for perception – discernment. THE PERCEPTIBLE That several different kinds of PERCEPTION exist is NOT made too clear if one consults the definitions for that term – and each of which can act as "helpers" regarding empowerment processes. However, we have a bit of better luck in consulting the definition for PERCEPTIBLE – which is briskly identified as "capable of being perceived." Two little facts can be deduced from this: (1) that humans can or might have perceptions of (2) what is capable of being perceived. One's mental equipment need not be all that profound in order to figure this out. Six synonyms are given for PERCEPTIBLE, and with these the earnest student of empowerment hits some kind of subtle pay dirt. All of the synonyms refer to what is "apprehensible as real or existent." They are:
PERCEPTIVE - PERCEPTUAL Two definitions are given for the term PERCEPTIVE:
Both of these definitions are related to the concept of "observant" or "being observant." Only one definition is given for the term PERCEPTUAL: "of, relating to, or involving sensory stimulus as opposed to abstract concept."
VOLUME II - PART IV ♦ ALL INDIVIDUALS HAVE RECOGNIZABLE INNATE BASE POWER SYSTEMS
Chapter 20 ♦ The Real Existence of Power Factors
AS IS always worth repeating in these volumes, the absence of knowledge about empowerment has come about because of intrigues within various kinds of power structures that socially engineer two major classes of people – the powerful and the powerless
To emphasize: minds are shaped not in the light of their own remarkable dimensions and powers, but are shaped to fit within the limits of artificial societal patterns.
In better actuality, it is the human species that has powers, and which innately download into each individual.
As an analogy here, it can be thought that each individual is born with something like a computer hard drive that is extensively pre-equipped with many powers. Only some of these pre-equipped powers are needed to adapt to this or that social environment. In this sense, it is the social environments that provide the equivalent of software that can be programmed into the hard drive. Needless to say, adapting to social environments usually demands the turning off of more powers than are turned on.
It is possible to examine societal power structures in detail, including their methods and techniques for gaining and maintaining control of the majority.
If this method is relatively successful, then a so-called "average" level of intelligence among the many will not be too high – but it will be okay to have that level because so many others likewise have it, and it therefore seems that is just the way things naturally are. THE CONCEALMENT OF POWER FACTORS Meanwhile, back at the greater ranch of our species itself, it is generally broadcast that possession of remarkable intelligence is its principal hallmark. Yet, if power structures are examined, including those that have collapsed or self-destructed, it is often to be wondered how, or IF, intelligence has been conceptualized in them, including the presumed intelligence of the powerful.
The reason is obvious, once one can become aware of it. For if intelligence overall is not empowered or re-empowered, then it is entirely doubtful that empowerment can ultimately consist of little more than a laughing matter. Of course, intelligence is rarely discussed in relationship to empowerment, largely because issues of empowerment are usually avoided altogether. Indeed, this was certainly the case during the twentieth century, otherwise once referred to as the Age of Progress and as the Age of Psychology, during which the disciplines of psychology grew so much in importance as to require their own encyclopedias and dictionaries.
However, attention must herewith be drawn to a particular DICTIONARY OF PSYCHOLOGY compiled by J.P. Chaplin, published in 1968 by Dell Publishing Co. The blurb on the back cover of this dictionary advertises that it "is the most recent compilation of terms, movements, and leading figures in the field of psychology, encompassing the many varieties and techniques that have evolved in the history of psychological thought." For those who read dictionaries of such kinds, perchance to discover something important, this book is indeed a good and exciting read. Even so, there is, of course, no entry in it for EMPOWERMENT, and the entry for POWER consists of the usual – "muscular strength; ability or authority to control others; social power." But there IS, of all things unusual, an entry for POWER FACTOR. And this is briskly defined as: "An intellectual factor which serves as an energizer of other intellectual factors." While it is not indicated in the dictionary, this definition is most certainly one of the more significant definitions of empowerment, largely because it indicates a concept of energizing and relates it to intelligence. It can be pointed out that the terms "intellectual" and "intelligence" do not mean exactly the same things, but the links between them are clear enough. ENERGIZING OF POWER FACTORS The meaning of ENERGIZER, however, IS clear enough, and, as has already been discussed, it is meaningful to both empowerment and depowerment – for, at base, depowerment is merely the de-energizing of empowerment and of power factors. There is no doubt that intelligence IS accepted as a human power, even if conventional attitudes do not view it as such.
Thus, it is possible to arrive at a fundamental question having to do with whether intelligence is a separate thing-in-itself, or whether it is linked to, and even dependent upon, other base powers. Many discussions, some of them quite dramatic, have taken place with regard to determining what intelligence IS.
After all, if systems of intelligence are to deal with information, they first need to receive or acquire it. To help illuminate and grok this, we can now enter into a brief survey of one of the most astonishing discoveries of all times – human information receptors at the cellular level of everyone. Chapter 21 ♦ Each Human Individual is Extensively Wired with Information Receptors
THERE IS a general tendency to be concerned with WHAT information consists of, rather than with how the human organism in-takes information, gets it, or becomes aware of it, in the first place. In other words, mind-intelligence must first in-take information before it can determine what it means one way or another. Thus, first there is in-take of information, and then there are the meanings to be assigned to various kinds and categories of it. To repeat, if the human organism and its systems of powers of intelligence are to deal in and with information, there must first be ways and means of receiving it into the systems. Thus, if intelligence does not or cannot receive information, or various kinds of it, then it cannot deal with it. The concern with what information consists of often leads to information management having to do with what people should or should not learn or acquire knowledge of and this kind of thing is what social conditioning revolves around. For example, information about empowerment can be made unavailable, and hence an absence of information about it can be artificially constructed.
INFORMATION VIA THE 5-PHYSICAL SENSES It is generally accepted that the human organism acquires information via the senses. As is well known, the modernist materialist concept of the sense organs held that there were only five of them – and that the five process sensory awareness of physicality. This concept was accepted as scientific doctrine. As has been discussed, there was nothing wrong with this, as far as it went. But the modernist concept also held that there were no other senses than the five physical ones, and therein a blunder of some magnitude became established as scientific "fact." To a certain degree, the adherents of the doctrine can be forgiven their blunder, for they had no scientific way of ascertaining that additional sense organs existed. But all along there were copious amounts of anecdotal evidence that humans also processed various kinds of sensed information that had little to do with physicality or the five physical senses. Those kinds of sensed information were explained away as being merely "subjective" in nature, i.e., as interior products of mind, and which were not derived from any kind of physical sensing organs or systems. THE DISCOVERY OF BIO-CELLULAR RECEPTORS However, a great change regarding all of this began to occur when the first electron microscopes became available during the 1930s. Examination of cells and cellular tissues under these microscopes began to reveal the existence of various kinds of RECEPTORS – and this has culminated today in the understanding that every cell in the human organism (some trillions of them) does act as some kind of information-dealing receptor. To understand this properly, is it fair to warn that the concepts and terminology of the old model of the five physical senses cannot continue to be used to any great benefit. Indeed, even the term "senses" cannot really be used with any great efficiency. Instead, it is necessary to think not in terms of senses, but in terms of receptors and information. And this shift in nomenclature also includes the physical five senses, which can more accurately be redefined as receptors of information confined exclusively to the limits of the receptors. DEFINITIONS OF RECEPTORS The term RECEPTOR is defined as: "a cell or group of cells acting as a sense organ that receive stimuli." The word STIMULI (plural of STIMULUS) is defined as "something that arouses or incites to activity." This is a slightly inefficient definition largely because the interdependent relationship between stimulus and receptor cannot easily be deduced from it. In order to better grasp the fundamental nature of the relationship, the term ENERGETIC has to be considered. That term is defined as "marked by energy" and "operating with vigor and effect." And so the relationship between stimulus and receptor is an energetic one, in that the receptor is designed to energetically respond to this or that thing that stimulates the energetic response. The term RECEPTOR was being used in English at about 1400, but generally meant someone who received something, while the term RECEIVER gradually replaced receptor in that particular usage. The term RECEPTIVE was in use about 1547, and was defined as "having the quality, or capacity, for receiving; able to receive; pertaining to or of the nature of reception." This definition was in general usage from the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries. At about 1906, however, the term RECEPTOR began to be affiliated with certain biological structures having the capacity to receive energetic impulses of some kind – i.e., receptor cells or cell groups, organs, and biodynamic systems. By 1927, two concepts had been added to the 1906 definition of RECEPTORS:
DISCOVERY OF RECEPTORS VIA ELECTRON MICROSCOPES The first electron microscope was developed in Germany in 1932, and later evolved into more refined models in the United States and Canada. With these remarkable instruments in hand, cellular biology underwent a great jump in importance – and thus began the process of discovering that biological cells were not simplistic things as once thought. Instead, they were composed of ultra-minute factors that functioned in amazing ways having to do not with physico-chemical elements alone, but also with electromagnetic impulses. The fact that biological organisms have some kind of electromagnetic substrate had been discovered during the seventeenth century. But this substrate was considered "weak" and thus unimportant in the face of the chemical substrate that was thought to be very strong. During the 1930s, however, researchers in various parts of the world, and especially in the (now former) Soviet Union, began to realize that although the electromagnetic substrate was "weak," it nevertheless played very important roles within the bio-chemical whole of biological organisms. In 1962, in France, a short paper by V. Mironovitch was published in REVUE METAPSYCHIQUE. The paper reported on a number of discoveries, and was entitled "The cells of the organism that act as receptors and emitters of electromagnetic waves," and reported on a number of discoveries. Among these was the discovery that cells have activities that are akin to semi-conductors that "capture" electromagnetic waves and transform their energies into "a nervous flux" that then affects the physiological state of the organism. In that sense, Mironovitch indicated that the cellular systems were acting in ways equivalent to "electromagnetic antennas," and that the cells not only received but also emitted and transmitted electromagnetic "signals" or impulses. Mironovitch (and other French researchers) held that via its cellular "information" receptors "our organism is very intimately linked into all areas of ambient activity," including meteorological effects of the terrestrial atmosphere (such as pressure, temperature, humidity, and electrical charges), but also is directly exposed to and connected with cosmic radiations. Based on this, and other discoveries, Mironovitch then suggested that the transmission of thought should indeed be possible because of, and via, biophysical receptors and emitters. EXPANDED RECEPTOR RESEARCH During the 1960s and 1970s, a tremendous amount of research about receptors began accumulating in scientific journals. It was not until 1984 that the importance of such work was published in a book format accessible to the lay reader. This book has been mentioned earlier, and, with emphasis, is again highly recommended to anyone seriously interested in empowerment. As already referred to, it is entitled DECIPHERING THE SENSES: THE EXPANDING WORLD OF HUMAN PERCEPTION, jointly authored by Robert Rivlan and Karen Gravelle, published by Simon & Schuster (1984). To quote from the book's flyleaf :
SOME DIFFERENT TYPES OF HUMAN RECEPTORS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED The following is a partial list of human receptors that are now known to exist. Please bear in mind that although the receptors are considered to be minute physical "organs" dealing in some kind of sensing, what they do "sense" constitutes some kind of impulse-like "information."
RECEPTORS (AND EMITTERS) AS POWERS OF MIND AND INTELLIGENCE As the cutting edge of research into receptors has progressed, it is now generally understood that all life forms possess some kind of them, and it is understood that they are innate within the species genomes of life forms, and are thus downloaded into each individual of the species. Although this might come as a surprise to most, all human individuals are thus innately equipped with the receptors described in the twenty-three categories above. What has not yet clearly been brought into the light of understanding about receptors, however, is that they can be referred to as powers – in that they deal in energy reception and modulate and/or transform it into meaning and "information" of various kinds that can be recognized as such by appropriate neural network systems. The number of receptor-emitters within human cellular-neural systems is vast enough to be thought of as astronomical – and the direct implication is that they altogether constitute energy-dynamic substrates of mind-cum-intelligence. What is also not yet fully recognized about receptor research is that it will, in the nearing future, ultimately change how the human organism is thought of. And when receptor research is coupled with genome research, ways and means will doubtlessly be found to genetically enhance receptor-emitter activity. EXPERIENCING RECEPTOR-EMITTER ACTIVITY AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL Whether they realize it or not, many individuals do experience sensing phenomena that download from basic receptor-emitter activity, and some reading through the foregoing list of the twenty-three kinds might by now have recognized as much.
Those reading through the list of twenty-three above will also recognize the receptor-emitter basis for various types of intuition and other kinds of ultra-sensing that extend beyond the boundaries of the famous 5-physical senses.
THE DYNAMIC STATUS OF RECEPTOR RESEARCH AS REFLECTED IN THE INTERNET In the publishing and media industries, reports on the cutting edges of receptor research are few and far between.
For example, as of the middle of 2001, the GOOGLE search engine lists well over one-half million references about receptors. Especially relevant are those references pointing to the categories of science, biology, cell biology, signal transduction, and etc. The bottom line here is that each individual has trillions of receptors – but this factor has never before been integrated into past models of mind, intelligence, or empowerment. Individuals therefore have innate powers with respect to whatever their receptors have powers for.
Chapter 22 ♦ Everyone has at Least Two Innate Sensing Systems
THE MANY discoveries having to do with receptors establish that the human organism is extensively wired for participating within exchanges of information at all levels of mind, including whatever its different parts might consist of This needs to be put even more descriptively. Each individual is genetically receptor-wired in a hard drive kind of way.
Thus, because of the discoveries regarding receptors, it is possible to conceptualize each individual not only as a physical body, but also as a very elaborate array of information sensing systems living amid a universe of information in the form of waves, signals, energies, and impulses. Something like this has, in fact, been understood here and there in the past, and in various ways. For example, it has long been understood that some life forms simply respond to their environments.
Thus have arisen accepted distinctions between lower "stimulus-response" life organisms, and those higher life organisms somehow having possession of information-dealing formats of intelligence that can transcend the obvious limits of stimulus-response mechanisms. One distinction between bio-stimulus-response organisms and those possessing intelligence is that the former respond only to what is immediately affecting them physically in some direct tangible sense. However, those organisms possessing more or less greater modicums of intelligence not only can extend awareness into past, present, and future contexts, but can also have awareness of tangible and intangible information.
But this also means that higher forms of intelligence, such as those human, must actually possess two receptor sensing systems for dealing in two different kinds of information – i.e., information tangible, and information intangible. DIFFICULTIES IN IDENTIFYING THE TWO TYPES OF RECEPTOR SENSING SYSTEMS Generally speaking, the term PERCEPTION is utilized to inclusively identify a multitude of phenomena. Some of those phenomena are different enough from others, and should therefore be singled out and specified under some other nomenclature. The problem here begins with standard dictionary definitions for PERCEPTION:
If these definitions are meditated upon, it can gradually dawn that they refer to a large variety of phenomena, the processes of which obviously do not derive from one source. For example, there are great distinctions between "intuition-insight" and "awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensations" – the greatest distinction being that the two categories are not the same at all. However, the two categories ARE incorporated under the same word – and one of the really dreadful results of this is that one is led to think that intuitive information is obtained the same way as information about the environment through physical sensations.
GETTING BEYOND THE CONCEPT OF PERCEPTION The increasing discovery regarding receptors of all kinds has, of course, put an end to the 5-senses only idea, although that idea still lingers on.
But human individuals do not operate-function exclusively within or because of physical-sensory surroundings, and it is easy enough to establish that they operate-function within information contexts that are NOT available from or because of physicality alone. This clearly establishes that human individuals have powers in addition to those associated with physicality. To get somewhat deeper into this, it is useful to review the history of the term PERCEPTION, if only to get beyond its boundaries. The term PERCEPTION entered English at about 1493. It was taken from the Latin PERSIPERE, which, in its literal sense, meant "to take in, to receive." But the first English definition of PERCEPTION was "to take in rents." By about 1611, the idea of "to take in cognizance of" began to be associated with PERCEPTION, and this gradually flowered into the metaphorical idea of "The taking cognizance or being aware of objects in general – especially as distinct from volition." In other words, becoming aware of objects in general was thought of as some kind of passive process, as distinguished from volition as an active one. And in fact, down until today, the perceptions of the five physical senses have essentially been thought of as PASSIVE intakes of information about physicality. It was not until about 1827 and shortly thereafter that the definition of PERCEPTION was extended to include "the intuitive or direct recognition of a moral or aesthetic quality, e.g., the truth of a remark, the beautiful in objects." The meaning implicit in this definition, however, refers to some kind of discriminating activity that is not exclusively based in the passive cognizance of objects as earlier defined.
Because of the cognitive difficulties involved with all of the above, a suggestive example is useful. Almost everyone can passively perceive the physical existence of rocks, and let it go at that.
So a rock is not JUST a rock passively perceived via the passive information intakes of the physical senses.
HUMAN POWERS PASSIVE AND ACTIVE While this little discussion is probably somewhat painful, the point of it has been to introduce the very important distinctions between passive and active human powers, a distinction that is made difficult by incorporating both sets of powers under just one word – perception. In fact, at about 1837, the existence of this difficulty began to be recognized by some researchers and philosophers seeking more intimately to sort out the confusions involved. An attempt was therefore made to introduce the term PERCEPT – and which was introduced as referring to (1) "the mental product or result of perceiving," and (2) "the object of perception." The intention of these definitions is not at first crystal clear. The objects of perception, rocks for example, were, as objects, to be referred to as percepts – while, at the same time the objects as percepts were to be duplicated within the human mind and thus to also be referred to as percepts.
If one is slightly confused by now, not to worry. The attempt here was to indicate that objects and mental images of them were both percepts – having to do with OBJECTS defined as physically existing. The percept, as well as the idea of perception, was exclusively related to physicality. And while the term PERCEPT is not generally used, it can be found in most twentieth century dictionaries with the definition of: "An impression of an object [physical] obtained by the use of the [physical] senses." Otherwise, the percept attempt was undertaken especially to begin recognizing the distinctions between direct perception of physical objects AND the becoming aware of mental activity that does not originate within the exact contexts of physical percept-ion. TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE INFORMATION At the heart of this convoluted matter resides the simple distinction between kinds of information derived from physicality and kinds of information derived from other than physicality. The human species is very good at deriving both kinds of information, the distinctions involving the differences not only between physical and non-physical, but between the seen and unseen, between the tangible and intangible, between the visible and invisible. Because of advancing receptor research, one observation that it is now appropriate to make is that if human organisms did not have receptors having to do with non-physical, unseen, intangible, invisible information, then such would not be available to any human organism. In other words, humans would not experience anything akin to intuition, or even insight or foresight.
One of the characteristics of intuition, insight, or foresight is that their products are mental products NOT derived exclusively from physicality, but rather via mixes of deduction and some kind of detecting that has not been very seriously identified.
It is also obvious that if intuition, and etc., yields, as it often does, information ultimately demonstrated as valid and applicable, then the real existence of detector systems in companionship with preceptor systems becomes recognizable.
Chapter 23 ♦ The "Electro-Impulse" Basis of Perceptor and Detector Information Systems
SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES have established that whatever else life forms might consist of, down at the cellular and molecular levels, they are electro-chemical-energetic in nature, and that if the electro parts go missing, the chemical and energetic parts begin failure closedown. However, what the electro parts altogether consist of is not completely understood, except that some parts are electromagnetic (EM) in nature, while other parts follow some other undiscovered kinds of energetic principles. To help provide a cognitive basis for this, the science of BIO-ELECTROCHEMISTRY deals with the relation of bioelectricity to bio-chemical changes and with the interconversion of biological chemical and electrical energy. The term IMPULSE has several definitions. The principal one is given as "a wave of excitation transmitted through tissue and especially nerve fibers and muscles that results in physiological and mind-brain activity or inhibition of it." The term INFORMATION also has several definitions. One of them, most unfamiliar, is given as "a signal impressed upon the input (or intake) of a communication system." In connection with impulse and information, the term SIGNAL has two definitions: "Something that incites to action;" and "A detectable physical (or non-physical] quantity or impulse (as a voltage, current, or magnetic field strength) by which messages or information can be transmitted." Thus, generally speaking, and in accordance with the foregoing definitions found in most dictionaries, impulses equal information, or at least some kind of it, while information equals different kinds of impulses that act as signals impressed upon the input or intake of receptor, preceptor, and detector sensing systems. At this point, it is now useful to refer back to chapter 21 containing a list of some twenty-three human receptor-perceptor-detector systems that have been discovered in recent times, and which are innate, even if depowered or non-functioning, in all individual specimens of our human species. However, the descriptions of the electronic receptors and impulses, and impulse information transmission via them, are quite alien to the conventional social conditioned ideas of what the individual human is – a biological package only of bones, meat, appetites, nerves, having perhaps a mind or part of one, and which mind generally demonstrates only some lower level of intelligence activity. In any event, since various distinctions have been made so far in this part Four, it can now be wondered what information basically consists of, especially with respect to detection of information intangible. THE "IMPULSE" BASIS OF INFORMATION Concepts of what information basically consists of will doubtlessly undergo refinement in the future, especially regarding the enormous minute realms and levels of receptors. But it can roughly be stated that information begins with impulses, or at least with some energetic factors that stimulate various kinds of receptors. It can also be stipulated that information impulses must somewhere and somehow be "sensed-felt" within receptor sensing systems. If they are, then, although information may exist and be available, it will not "enter" into impulse receptor system networks, or, for that matter, into mind-intelligence awareness systems. It can easily be seen that information and empowerment have something to do with each other. It can also be seen that if information AND its implications are not sensed-felt within individual mind-intelligence power systems, then whatever the information might consist of will remain absent in those systems. And THIS is the principle reason for dragging through the following considerations about impulses and the two basic sensing systems innate in everyone. THE MEANING OF INFORMATION IMPULSES TO EMPOWERMENT AND POWER While certain definitions for the word IMPULSE have been mentioned above, there are additional ones to be pointed out:
Combined, these three definitions of IMPULSE can just as well be taken, with some surprise, as one of the MOST IMPORTANT definitions of power. The definitions are relevant within the individual human organism, and are also entirely relevant to larger-picture formats of power external to that organism. Indeed, IMPULSE equals electrical/magnetic/power, which in turn equates to MEANING/INFORMATION, and which in turn again equates to some quantum of POWER and EMPOWERMENT. Via the observations above, it can now be seen that electro-information impulses have some vital relevance to the status of power and empowerment not only regarding a given individual, but also with respect to "sources" of power external to individuals. This is much to say that where there are few or no impulses, there will also not be much power. So to speak, the "action" is where the impulses are, or vice versa. The foregoing discussions clearly imply that the individual, in addition to viewing self as a physical body with mental equipment, also needs to view self as composed of equipment that deals in and with electro-magnetic impulses.
And so, one begins to wonder what that equipment might consist of It is logical to assume that the equipment, to work at all, must contain two fundamental factors that permit the intake and output of impulses – or "signals." As has been discussed, these two factors are referred to as biological receptors and emitters of electrical or magnetic impulses – and which, for a long time, were held not to exist.
While the matter of receptors and emitters may be unfamiliar, almost everyone can realize that specimens of our human species possess sensing systems, and so we are back on familiar territory.
If one begins to think in terms of human sensing systems, one might also begin to wonder if there is just one, or several, each of which somehow functions with respect to different kinds of information impulses. SENSING SYSTEMS IMPULSES ARE TRANSDUCED INTO COGNIZABLE INFORMATION It is admittedly difficult to conceptualize what an energy impulse actually consists of, especially because the impulses take place at a cellular level – and so they are not exactly consciously experienced as such. One way to get around this is to utilize the analogy of a radarscope on which blips appear when something they are engineered to contact hoves into view.
This process is, in some sense at least, a process akin to TRANSDUCTION. A TRANSDUCER is defined as "a device that is actuated by power from one system and supplies power in any other form to a second system." The usual example given of a transducer is the telephone whose receiver is actuated by electric power and supplies acoustic power to the surrounding air.
With respect to human sensing systems that are actuated by impulses, the impulses need to be forwarded to some kind of transducing systems that convert the impulses into feeling and meaning that can become cognizable and recognizable to mind-intelligence, or to any other relevant mind-part – such as the subconscious part.
IF THIS is difficult to understand, do be assured that no one so far knows anything about the details of human transducing systems except that the jump of converting impulse into feeling and meaning does take place. As far as conscious experience might be concerned, there seem to be at least five transducing systems that convert impulses into feelings and meanings – although before this book, these five have never been conceptualized as transducing systems. But all five are known to exist, and all five are generally familiar enough, and if properly understood they can have ultra-importance with respect to empowerment. All of the five act as stimulating and energizing power factors to each other. Alas, the five share one thing in common: in-depth information and knowledge about them is almost totally unavailable, and what little information does exist is encapsulated in confusions. These five human transducing systems qualify as base powers pure and simple, and so they can be empowered or depowered – which is to say, turned on or turned off. Chapter 24 ♦ Human Powers Empathic
THOSE WHO examine the list of human receptors found in chapter 21 might begin to recognize some sensing phenomena they have experienced themselves, or have surely read about.
As already discussed, the 5-senses-only idea could not explain why or how such phenomena could occur in anyone.
It is, however, necessary to comprehend that the 5-physical senses and the receptor sensing systems DO NOT sense things in themselves, but sense pulse-like information about them.
Whether or not the integrations enter into the so-called conscious part of the mind is another matter.
Even so, it must be stipulated that receptor information IS entering the systems of the human organism. If it is not being accepted into the conscious part of mind, it is anyway being fed into other non-conscious parts of it where it can merge with subconscious activity. After this, the receptor information can spontaneously emerge, for example, via dream states, intuition states, gut-feelings, foreseeing phenomena, and also affect emotional and empathic levels. One of the great, but unacknowledged, powers of our species that downloads into everyone is the power to erect cognitive reality boxes whether based on lesser or greater amounts of emotional and intellectualized information.
It is quite clear that depowerment can be socially engineered by depriving reality boxes of information – especially with respect to knowledge about power and empowerment.
THE INTERACTIVE NATURE OF OUR OBSERVING, EMPATHIC, AND "TELEPATHIC" POWERS On the list of receptor categories provided in chapter 21, attention is now drawn to item 23, which reads:
Bearing in mind these whole-body receptors, it is commonly understood that we do have five physical sensing powers.
If no meanings are established, then the input information has zero importance, and the chances are very good that whatever has zero importance will not even format into perception or detection of it. This clearly and unambiguously means that human sensing systems not only have receptors that input "raw" information, but MUST also have receptors that deal with attributing meaning(s) of what has been input as raw information. THIS, in turn, clearly implies the existence of TWO essential systems – one that inputs information-impulses, and one that assigns meaning to what has been input. In order to help clarify that this double system does exist in actuality, the physical mechanisms of eyesight, for example, have been discovered and mapped down to and including their smallest biological molecules.
One of the deterrents to discovery in this regard is that our human species possesses perceiving and detecting powers that are not, in their first instances, based in physicality.
The English language has only one term that seems efficient here, the term EMPATHY. THE TERM "EMPATHY" It is now necessary to bring to light the definitions of certain terms which, when associated and combined into a knowledge package, will lead to realizations about how utterly important our empathic powers are. It seems that the term EMPATHY was first brought into usage only in 1912 by a German writer named Lipps, and then only in association with art and art appreciation.
Literally speaking, EM means "to put into something." The English term PATHETIC is taken from the Greek PATHETIKOS, meaning "capable of feeling."
However, to be precise, the German word EINFUHLLEN is defined as "to feel one's way into; to seek or obtain a sympathetic understanding." Although SYMPATHETIC is usually thought of as having compassion and sensitivity to the emotions or situations of others, the principal definition is given as "existing or operating through an affinity, interdependence, or mutual association." In 1928, the term EMPATHY was given another distinction, again with regard to art and art appreciation: "the active power of empathy which makes the artist, or as the passive power of empathy which makes the appreciator of art." These are distinctions might be lost in today's status-conscious cultures in which "art" is defined by how much it costs, or what it will sell for at auction.
As it was by the 1930s, the definitions for EMPATHY were lifted out of their singular artistic associations and three additional ones were given as:
As discussed so far, it might seem that the idea of empathy is a relatively modern, and somewhat intellectual development. But the idea of EM-PATHY has some serious historical roots in that it is built upon the ancient Greek concepts of the PATHOS and the PATHETIC. One of the difficulties with the term PATHETIC is that it has a modern definition and an ancient one, the latter of which is given as "obsolete." The modern use: Affecting the tender emotions; exciting a feeling of pity, sympathy, or sadness. The ancient use: Producing an effect upon the emotions; exciting the passions or affections; moving, stirring, affecting. (This definition, allegedly obsolete, is certainly not so in Hollywood, etc.) TO FEEL is closely associated with physical touch, or to ascertain by physical touch. In a wider sense, it is also defined as:
The third definition above is indicated as obsolete, for reasons not entirely clear – except, possibly, to intellectually sever the connection between empathic powers and powers of awareness. To have the sensation of contact with, thence to put into feeling so as to become aware of, thence to perceive or detect mentally, can altogether be thought of as the processes of empathy.
Chapter 25 ♦ Human Powers Telepathic
THERE APPEAR to be at least five sets of base human powers that can easily be recognized, although other individuals can probably identify additional ones.
Although quite different in obvious and subtle ways, these five sets of base powers have important factors in common.
Another common factor is that although the major physical sensing organs are important with respect to these five powers, it is clear that they are more closely associated with receptors that detect and interpret meanings of subtle energies and impulses. Yet another factor in common is that there are enormous deficits of research information about these five base powers, and this constitutes an impressive knowledge vacuum once it can be recognized as existing. The existence of this knowledge vacuum can only mean that the five base powers are too closely associated with empowerment and power.
SOCIETAL RESISTENCE AGAINST DEVELOPING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE FIVE BASE POWER Once it is recognized as such, the absence of research and information with respect to the potentials of human awareness is appalling. But societal power structures cannot afford to encourage too much empowerment of awareness, since such would seriously make for management difficulties within the larger populations of the powerless or relatively powerless. In fact, dumbed-down awareness powers probably equate to depowerment of some kind. Any in-depth examination of the characteristics of social or societal power structures will reveal that overt and covert efforts are made to prevent accessible accumulations of knowledge about these five base powers. That they do exist is taken for granted, of course. But research and enlightenment about their full scope of potentials is hardly anywhere to be found. The principal reason, of course, is that even moderately enhanced powers of empathy, telepathy, observing, awareness, and attention WILL result in recognition of motives and intentions of others. Thus, these five powers have long been considered as invasive by those informed enough to recognize them as such – especially invasive with respect to maintenance of power and to power games.
And such has been the clear-cut case in our recent modernist times with respect to the base powers of telepathy. Those powers, known absolutely to exist, have been considered an appropriate topic for parapsychology research, but only by parapsychologists.
THE CONCEPT OF TELEPATHY The term TELEPATHY was coined sometime before 1882 by the energetic British psychical researcher Frederick William Henry Myers (1843-1901). It was immediately taken up by the British Society for Psychical Research in 1882, and has since come down to us, albeit with several changes in definition. Among those definitions, the one that caught on and stuck, largely because of media hype, had to do with the idea of one mind broadcasting to another mind, which was soon truncated as "mind-to-mind" and "mind-reading," the latter of which had an earlier history going back some time. But this mind-to-mind concept did not come about until radio broadcasting was convincingly demonstrated in 1913, after which many conceptualized that mental broadcasting worked like radio broadcasting did.
Literally speaking, the prefix TELE is the Greek term for far off, at a distance, across distance, etc.
Literally speaking, then, and in the context meant by Myers in 1882, telepathy is feeling-evoking across distance, or at a distance, etc. Myers also coined another term closely related to his concept of telepathy. This was TELETHESIA, a combination of the Greek TELE + AISTHANESTHAI, meaning to perceive – i.e., perception across distance. Myers felt that the term telesthesia was needed alongside that of telepathy after it was found that the communications between distant persons is not a transference of thought alone, but of emotions, of motor impulses, and of "many impressions not easy to define." Many examples of telethesia were identified. For example, on November 4, 1914, a mother experienced a sharp pain in her arm where there was no wound. With some conviction, she stated that her son, away at war, had just been injured in his arm. Confirmation of this soon arrived by mail. Myers coined yet another term – TELERGY – to name the "force or its mode of action which is manifest in telepathy, telesthesia, and perhaps in other supernormal operations." A point must be made here to ensure that FORCE, as a noun, is principally first defined as: "a strength or energy exerted or brought to bear," AND is also synonymous with POWER. (Please note that FORCE, as a verb, has other definitions.) It is also worth repeating that the definitions of IMPULSE are given as:
One might wish to memorize the third definition just above, because grounds will shortly be presented that will lead toward wondering if our human sensing systems possess receptors for detecting incentive, inspiration, or motivation of others. The answer will be in the positive. THOUGHT TRANSFERENCE Before the term "telepathy" was coined in 1882, the phenomena involved had been referred to as thought transference, sometimes as sympathetic connection, and, more loosely, as mind-reading.
The Greek historian, Herodotus (484?-425? B.C.) wrote his HISTORIES during the fifth century B.C., and included in them references to very numerous events that today correspond to empathic powers, to telepathy, and to elegant forms of intuition. Some two-thousand years later, the famous Swiss physician, Paracelsus (1493?-1541), wrote: "By the magic power of the will a person in this side of the ocean, may make a person on the other side hear what is said on this side. The ethereal body of a man may know what another man thinks at a distance of 100 miles or more."
TELEPATHY AS IMPULSE INFORMATION TRANSFER Regardless of whatever terms are assigned to the phenomena of telepathy, the active principle involved has majorly to do with information transfer among and between living organisms. This transferring takes place via means other than the interfacing of objective mediums such as talking, writing, or any other kind of external signals. In other words, the processes of telepathy take place via some kind of direct sensing that does not require anything other than receptors and emitters of information impulses. And so much depends on whether such receptors exist. THE DISCOVERY OF TELEPATHY RECEPTORS Attention is now drawn to items 7, 10, and 12 that were listed in chapter 21, and again provided below for ease of reference.
While these three items may seem a bit technical, not to worry because all they really mean is that the human organism possesses receptors that are clearly part of the basis for telepathic reception of raw impulse information.
But even if one has been educationally conditioned to be consciously insensitive, there is often tendency of telepathic nerve impulses to break through into consciousness anyway – and so the individual experiences an event of "spontaneous telepathy." During modern times, many books have been devoted to recording anecdotal evidence of spontaneous telepathy, some of which are listed in the bibliography.
That the human organism possesses receptors for various kinds of telepathy information transference is now in evidence, not only including mind-to-mind potentials, but a very interesting category referred to as "telepathic Osmosis." Chapter 26 ♦ Human Powers of Observing
DURING THE course of 1993, NEWSWEEK magazine, in its June 28 issue, featured an article about "The Puzzle of Genius: New Insights Into Great Minds."
The major blurb for the article indicated that:
The article was six pages long, and a great deal was briskly discussed in it. But in the end, it was more or less concluded that those having genius were thus and so because they could see what others do not. |