October 17, 2002

  • I believe that one reason many people have serious doubts about those who genuinely purport to possess “psychic powers” is that such "powers" so often seem feeble in pragmatically assisting with real life and death concerns at hand.  Take for instance, the D.C. Sniper.  Why haven’t any notable psychics or remote viewers seemingly been able to assist with locating the perpetrator(s)?  Or are the investigators lax in failing to consult psychics/remote viewers in this matter?  Or are the psychics/remote viewers actually helpfully assisting in a manner that isn’t being divulged?


     


    This morning, I tried myself to “psychically” gain access, a view, a clue about the perpetrator(s).  I relaxed in the shower under the pulsing torrent from the showerhead and prepared to slip like a voyeur into another’s awareness.  After a few moments, *other consciousness* appeared.   I felt, indeed, that I was “seeing” the world in real time from another’s point of view.  But whose?  The sense of “killer” was not impressing me.  And what did I “see”?  Hazily, the scuffle of a workplace with someone walking into a large building from outside.  And then the word “Minolta” came to me.  And that was that!


     


    Ha ha.  Should I call the F.B.I. and reveal what I “know”?! 


     


    The problem here is that many who do have just such glimpses or fleeting insights might, just might (not saying you or I do, but not saying you or I don’t either), have a small piece of valuable information that can’t possibly make sense except in the context of a larger framework remaining disjointed and hence unaccessed.   For instance, in a battlefield environment, soldiers are trained to report anything strange they notice (eg., lower than expected water in a stream, birds not singing when they normally do, fruit notably absent from a tree that should be in season, etc.)—even if they haven’t a clue about the value, explanation, or meaning of any of it.  Why?  Because military information specialists who assemble such information are well aware that certain “innocuous, isolated bits” of information often turn out to be essential in constructing intelligence about the larger picture.  If the water’s lower, maybe a damn is being constructed upstream.  If the birds aren’t singing, maybe they are dead from toxic chemical artifacts or they’ve been frightened by movement into quiescence.  If the fruit’s missing, maybe the enemy lunched (or perhaps just a hungry band of monkeys)??  Sometimes, only when all the “bits” are assembled far removed (consciously) from the “bit” collectors does the overall intelligence matrix begin to elicit the “Aha!” from those seeking to gain an added advantage.


     


    So “Minolta” may not mean much to me—but who am I to judge?!


     


    Yet I’m reticent to “divulge” my “knowledge.”  After all, I’m no longer an operative in a military unit that supports and encourages such fragmented reporting.  In fact, I’m of the opinion that if I “explained” just what it is that I “know” and how I “know” it, that I’d be treated, at best, with disdain.  This proportioned sense of reservation arising from a reasonable expectation of disparagement is what I call the “Psychic’s Dilemma.”


     


    O well, possibly I know nothing!  I’m not currently aware enough (on this matter) to know if I know something!  But more importantly: I’m not networked anymore in the context of a formal intelligence matrix that sucks my mind for tidbits.  Hurray for me!   I think…

Comments (219)

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment

notforprophet

Recent Posts

Categories

The End of Days

October 2002
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031