THE STEREOTYPE AS INHIBITOR
OF KNOWLEDGE AND DIRECT EXPERIENCE
[continued from Part One]
If there is any factor that is of supreme importance regarding the superpowers of the human bio-mind, it is direct experience of them at the individual level. Episodes of such direct experiencing can, and do, happen spontaneously to just about anyone --- at least occasionally so somewhere during one's life.
If this did not occur, then the existence of the superpowers would be a non-issue. It is the fact that the superpowers DO spontaneously occur that is the certain evidence that they DO EXIST.
Thus, whatever this or that skeptic has to say, or whatever WHATs that are produced against them via science, academe and psychology, well, all that is irrelevant.
WHATs that are produced on behalf of the superpowers are also irrelevant if they do not contribute to functional knowledge about them.*
By "functional knowledge" here is meant knowledge that directly links our cognitive minds to the virtual, direct experiencing of the superpowers and their various faculties.
Anything that does not do this, no matter how positive on the surface it might be toward the superpowers, is "noise" --- counter-productive noise, defeating noise.
Since cognitively controlled forms of the superpowers are rare and few and far between, we might then assume that if there is a topic of human bio-mind functioning that is utterly, utterly submerged in noise, it is the topic of the superpowers of the self-same bio-mind.
That this is patently the case can be ascertained by the fact of the cultural non-development of the superpowers, a non-development that has been consistently maintained during the modern period. (See my forthcoming essay regarding "The Superpowers And Skeptics Of The Twentieth Century.")
Now, as technicians worldwide easily understand, where noise is present there is no way to eliminate it except by identifying what it is, where it comes from, etc. When noise is identified and deleted from any system, then the system automatically functions better. (If you have by now not already done so, please take time here to locate and read my Essay "Remote Viewing And The Signal-To-Noise Ratio.")*
All of the superpowers of the human bio-mind suffer from one quite large noise source --- stereotype thinking. And so it is now necessary to examine what that consists of. I fully realize that this topic has become somewhat tediously overbooked during the last forty years or so. But none the less it remains a crucial one regarding cognitive comprehension of the superpowers.
The exact reason is that stereotype thinking blocks the cognitive mind from detecting and identifying the very subtle signals emanating from one's superpower faculties.
In that sense, then, if one's mental information grids process information through stereotype information points, then information that doesn't fit in with those points will be rejected or not "received."
In such a case, your own superpower faculties may be producing signals, but they won't be detectable within the "wiring" of your mental information processing grids.
We now need to see why this is so. In my experience, most people seem to think they know what a stereotype is. But they don't.*
In English, "stereo" is taken from the Greek "stere" or "stereo" --- and which meant SOLID or solid body.
From this there eventually descended into English a series of terms having to do with "solid" or "solidity," all with the prefix of "stereo." For example:
STEREOGRAM: a diagram or picture representing objects with an impression of solidity.
STEREOGRAPHY: the art, process, or technique of delineating the forms of solid bodies on a plane.
The contexts here all had to do with solid, solidity, impermeable, hard.*
In 1798, the French printer, Didot, along with a German named Herman, announced a new discovery in printing which they called stereotype. This was described as the method or process in printing in which a solid plate of type-metal, cast from a papier-mache or plaster mold taken from the surface of a form of type, is used for printing from instead of the original form itself. In other words, a copy was made and the copy was used to print from so that the original did not get worn down or destroyed in the process of printing.
This definition is still carried in conventional dictionaries of today: a plate made by molding a matrix of a printing surface and making from this a duplicate then cast in type metal.*
I've not been able to determine when, where, and by whom the word was converted into psychological usage, although it is relatively certain this took place in the first decade of the Twentieth Century. Up until the conversion, though, "stereotyping" referred exclusively to "making stereotype plates for any printed work or impressing copies in stereotype (printing) plates."*
The conversion from printing to human psychology may have been commenced by early Russian neurophysiologists during the Pavlov period when stimulus-response motor mechanisms were being researched in animals and humans.
In that sense, "dynamic stereotype" came to refer to the end-result of cortical analysis and synthesis of all stimuli arising from both the external and the internal world if the same response always occurred relative to the same stimulus.
From this apparently came the term "stereotypy" which referred to the constant repetition of any action --- such as incessantly rubbing some part of the body, maintaining a given posture for inordinately long periods, and when catatonic patients assume the same frozen posture for months and years. This led to the concepts of self-repeating, "fixed" behavior patterns and compulsive stereotypy behavior.*
Now PLEASE bear the following in mind. When the great Age of Psychological Testing got underway during the 1920s, it was discovered that "In Rorschach testing, stereotypy of responses suggests a lack of imagination, one of whose indicators is a high animal response percentage." (Also see: Psychiatric Dictionary, Robert J. Campbell, Ed., and other authoritative sources regarding stereotypy and stereotype.)*
From this now arose the infamous term STEREOTYPE.
In the first sense of its usage, however, it referred explicitly to an individual motor pattern that was originally meaningful to the subject (i.e., the individual), and/or carried some private, autistic meaning for him. "Stereotypes are thus to be distinguished from PRIMITIVE MOTOR PATTERNS which are inborn or acquired very early in life, and that consist of simple movements or groups of simple movements."*
From this, or along side of it, now arose the contemporary definition of "stereotype," and which assumed broad coverage and usage especially during the 1950s.
STEREOTYPE: something conforming to a fixed or general pattern, especially a standardized mental picture held in common by members of a group and representing AN OVERSIMPLIFIED OPINION, AFFECTIVE ATTITUDE, OR UNCRITICAL JUDGMENT - as of a person, a race, an issue, or an event. [Emphasis has been added.]*
So, we can we trace the use of the Greek term "stere" down to today's term "stereotype." We can see that the term (1) which once meant "solid" evolved into (2) a term which meant a printer's process to produce solid type. From that usage, the evolution proceeded (3) through a concept which meant fixed motor responses, down to (4) today's usage as "a standardized mental picture representing an over-simplified opinion."
Along the way we encountered the usage of STEREOTYPY referring to a constant repetition of any action, and stereotypy of responses suggesting a lack of imagination, one of whose indicators is a high animal response percentage. I'll not comment on the apparent implications here.*
Now, I'm not suggesting that we do so of course, but we could recombine these different definitions in a way that suggests that anyone who is possessed of over-simplified opinions not only has a lack of imagination but is thereby turned into a creature with a high animal response percentage.
We might also suppose, hypothetically at least, that over-simplified opinions result in forms of brain-lock, or mind-lock, or neuro-motor-cognitive conditions which are solid enough to prevent any intrusion of subtle, refined or complex signals or data and information.
But we SHOULD notice that the dictionary definition of STEREOTYPE given above makes no mention at all of the possibility that "oversimplified opinion, affective attitude, or uncritical judgment" might have nothing to do with anything real or actual.
Indeed, at least some stereotypes might consist of nothing but illusions reduced into simplicities so that the illusions can more easily be held in common by members of a group.*
Now that we have some vague idea of the definitions and implications of stereotype, we have to take a moment and discuss how stereotype stuff is applied to those two horrible tasks of (1) getting through life, and (2) thinking about what we encounter and sense.
Obviously over-simplified opinions and uncritical judgments decrease the need (1) to think beyond the shared stereotypes that link groups together; and (2) to think in increasing detail about things that are encountered or sensed.
We also have to remember that the term "stereotype" is derived from "solid" --- meaning that stereotypes have attributes of solidity and impermeability. Perhaps this might be why they often decrease the more fluid attributes of our species such as imagination, creativity, inventiveness, and our species more subtle sensing systems. (See my essay on "The Sensorium Of The Human Bio-Mind.")
This would clearly be the case if the stereotypes lined up and organized as one's "standardized mental image pictures" are solid enough from both the inside out and the outside in.
Now, the definition of STEREOTYPE clearly states that stereotypes ARE "standardized mental image pictures." The direct meaning, then, is that they are interior to our mental thinking processes. Indeed, a mental image picture can exist in only one place --- inside our heads, minds, brains, and what passes in them for thinking.*
Yet, hardly anyone makes a very important and obvious connection here.
Generally speaking, stereotypes are what people think they see, perceive and encounter outside of themselves. Here, then, we encounter the marvelous process of ASSIGNING a stereotype that exists (1) interior to one's mind to (2) something or someone outside of that mind.
Now, back four or more decades, psychologists identified this marvelous processes and called it "projection." In other words, we project our inwardly held stereotyping mental image pictures ONTO something external to our minds.
Having magically done as much, we then accomplish a second most marvelous process. We assume that that thing out there ACTUALLY IS the stereotype. This is the "I know one when I see one" kind of thing.
We now easily accomplish yet a third most marvelous process. We assume we know what that thing is --- for the simple reason that it now fits exactly with that mental image picture held interior in our minds.*
As marvelous as these three separate processes are, they can easily be combined in a single concept: viewing the world through the editorial lenses of one's interior and over-simplified mental image pictures.
And thus we arrive at the true meaning and function of the stereotype.
The most marvelous aspect of all this is that we are hardly aware of the existence of these lenses. They exist invisibly and anonymously within our mental information processing grids --- where they preclude perception and comprehension of what doesn't fit in with their over- simplifications of knowledge and experiencing.*
I have, of course, dragged you through the above, possibly tedious, discussions in order to discuss one of the all-time great inhibitors regarding becoming more functionally aware of the superpower faculties of the human bio-mind.
In large part, it doesn't matter what a stereotype is composed of in terms of its information or mis-information content. That is pertinent only at the individual level.
It is far more important to recognize the "structural" phenomena of a stereotype --- to recognize the phenomena all stereotypes seem to have in common regardless of their vastly different information contents.
If we cling to the etymological history of all terms utilizing "stere" or "stereo" as a prefix, then we are obliged to accept the concepts of solid, solidity, concrete form, impermeability, etc. When we add the concept of "over-simplified" to this, we end up with solidly over- simplified.
"SOLID," then, is the psychoactive term --- and it no longer matters what the stereotype consists of otherwise in terms of information or mis-information.*
We are now within complete justification to say that a stereotype is both (1) solid, and (2) consists of grossly over-simplified information content, and (3) the over- simplified information content has become solid and impermeable. It is the solidity which acts to prevent reception or recognition of any refined and subtle experiencing of a nature more complex than what the solid stereotypes can deal with.
It is almost completely certain that all of the faculties associated with any one of the superpowers of bio- mind precisely deal with subtle, refined and complex "signals." Indeed, most people experiencing a superpower episode often comment on the subtlety of the experiencing --- and often upon the "fluidity" as well.
Thus, we are well within the application of rational logic to assume that a given mental information processing grid will not interact or deal with such signals, or even recognize their presence, if that grid is heavily laden with solid stereotypes.*
Now, WORDS can only go so far --- and appeal anyway only to the left hemisphere of the interpretive, psychoactive brain. It is possible to convert this solid stereotype situation into a simple visual graphic now constructed below for your possible edification.
In that graphic, let us say that $!$!$ represents the cognitive consciousness of a given human specimen which is born to think and which also possesses inherent bio-mind faculties for experiencing superpower inputs.
Let us then picture that the zeros (0) represent solid stereotype information points or packages that have become installed in that specimen's mental information processing grids. We need not be concerned with what kinds of information is involved. We are concerned only with the structural solidity of the zeros. We will assume, of course, that this solidity is such that it is impervious to and intolerant of the subtle sensitivity required to access and recognize the subtle signals of the superpowers.
Let us also assume that the specimen $!$!$ possesses numerous interlocking layers of mental information processing grids --- and that all of this interlocking works in ways to brain-lock one's awareness and perceptual powers. These layers are represented by the lines of zeros.
Let us assume that the dots (.) represent the subtle nature of both the superpower faculties and their subtle information in-puts.
Finally, the upward pointing arrows denote shows the direction of information flows --- i.e., up to the cognitive consciousness of the specimen involved.
With all this now set forth, the graphic would look like the one presented immediately below.
$!$!$ ^ ^ ^ 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . . . . . . . . . . . ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . . . . . . . . . . ____________________________________________________________
I'm not, of course, going to point fingers at examples of stereotype thinking. Doing so is a useless exercise, because most people think that what they do think is correct and don't particularly care if it is stereotype thinking or not.
But there is the issue of what "correct thinking" is comprised of. Generally speaking, it is whatever fits one into the social groupings one wishes to belong to. This is one of the principal functions of stereotypes that are mental image pictures broadly shared (cloned) among groups, and which pictures are based on over-simplified concepts.
I have to admit that I've not been able to determine why over-simplified concepts and thinking are NOT permissive of more complex concepts and thinking.
One explanation might be that stereotype mental image pictures have, by self-preserving necessity, to reject anything that can't be fitted into them --- because if the rejection did not take place then the over-simplified concepts would come under stress and might fail. Various kinds of psychological phenomena do become observable when someone's stereotypes find themselves challenged by information, data, or facts that don't fit in with them.*
However, it is somewhat easier to point up what stereotypes and stereotype thinking grids have to do with remote viewing and all of the other superpowers of the human bio-mind.
For one thing, a basic one at that, all born specimens of the human species are NEVER over-simplified ones. Indeed, each specimen is an entirely and always complex and complicated affair.
The human bio-mind is so complex that legions of scientists during the modern age have not been able to figure out most of it.
The bio-mind of the human species is indeed a very great mystery. And so it's quite difficult to comprehend how over-simplified thinking patterns are meaningful to this very great mystery.
For another thing, stereotype thinking is defined as over-simplified thinking. In this context such thinking can process only over-simplified information, can posit or imagine only over-simplified questions, and can only come up with over-simplified answers.
Additionally, over-simplified, stereotype thinking rejects anything that doesn't fit in with it in the first place. And so such thinking is incapable of positing any accurate questions relevant to what has been rejected.
On the other hand, it is understood quite well that unless one can find the correct question to ask, then one will not achieve the correct answers. It is also somewhat understood that an incorrect question asked will probably produce an answer appropriate to it --- one that is just as incorrect as the question was.
In other words, questions emanating from stereotyping brain-lock produce brain-lock answers which appropriately feed back into the stereotyping brain-lock. A closed loop if I've ever seen one --- even if a sense of self- satisfaction is temporarily experienced thereby.
If you wish to explore a little, with careful observation of others you can often see the stereotyping closed loop thing active in others. Of course such will not be found regarding oneself.*
Now, it may be that some few stereotypes are functional ones --- if their basic over-simplified information points are even approximately correct. For example, it seems functional to stereotype a serial killer as a menace and deadly danger. This seems correct enough, and most of them will say as much of themselves when caught.
On the other hand, a stereotype whose basic over- simplified information is incorrect can be a menace and a deadly danger.
For example, the concept that bio-human superpowers of "psi and ESP are the work of the devil" has historically proven ITSELF a menace and deadly danger.
Indeed, no such stereotyping "truth" can be found in any of the major religious or philosophical documents of the world. Especially not in the Bible which consistently posits such superpowers as the viaduct God speaks through to humankind. Correct estimations of the superpowers as posited in the Bible are available. (See, for example," ESP In The Bible" by Laurence Tunstall Heron, Doubleday & Co, Garden City, NY, 1974.)
The very solid "scientific" concept that the superpowers of the human bio-mind are irrational and unscientific has, during the Twentieth Century, achieved quite wide cultural and high-impact dimensions. But even so, it clearly is nothing more than a self-serving, closed loop thing.
Largely speaking, science proper is littered with a number of closed loop, brain-lock things, often called "prevailing theories" which have to be "abandoned" at various junctures amid the "march" of scientific progress. But this one is a pseudo-scientific absurdity --- because it has been reduced to such tremendous over-simplification that one can hardly even detect what it is that has been simplified.
So I'll point up what has been simplified. The more exact nature of our very own species --- especially, in this case, with regard to its natural possession of highly refining, cognitive, creative superpower faculties that persist in manifesting spontaneously everywhere.*
One of the natural extensions of this essay regards how the bio-mind within each specimen of our species recognizes itself, and after doing so begins to reorganize and reformat its information grids to permit superpower signals.
Preparatory for that essay, though, are three other ones that will give the reader increased access to little- known information points needed for the recognition processes to occur and take on some semblance of relevant wiring.
These three essays are forthcoming as:
-- Sensory Transducers
-- The Superpowers and the Bio-Mind Sensorium (Part Two of three essays regarding Intuition)
-- The Superpowers of the Human Bio-Mind and Mental Information Processing Grids
(End)
Copyright 1996 by Ingo Swann. This and other recent articles by Ingo Swann are archived at the following sites:
Permission to redistribute granted,
if done so in complete and unaltered form.
Published on the Internet by Thomas Burgin (thomas@mindspring.com)**
WWW: http://www.webcom.com/way/the-way.html
FTP: ftp://ftp.webcom.com/pub/way/
WWW: http://www.mindspring.com/~biomind/Pages/Superpowers.html
The Controlled Remote Viewing Home Page is a service of