Research into parapsychology topics like telepathy and ESP is normally designed either to prove that the phenomenon is real, or to understand how it works.
As a clinical psychologist (and before that, 20 years as a composer/pianist) interested in these topics for 55 years, first - excellent set of deeply insightful observations.
Regarding whether or not to persist in speaking to skeptics, here's another view.
1. Have a quick "openness check" before engaging with a skeptic who claims, "I'm completely open, just give me evidence."
I sent the following to arch skeptic British psychologist Susan Blackmore, and with the stipulation, knowing she would not trust my memory, "Hypothetically, if the facts were as follows, would you accept this as evidence of psi," she answered affirmatively. Now, if you can find any reason to doubt all the facts, and can provide a reasonable scientific explanation for your doubt, please add it.
In the spring of 1977, several months after I moved into an apartment on 2nd Avenue and 9th street in NY City, I woke up from a dream, KNOWING I had been in my neighbor's apartment in the dream (though I had never been there in waking, and each apartment on the same floor had a completely different layout). I was enough of a skeptic as to spend at least 10 minutes on waking writing as much detail about the apartment as I could. This included:
The full layout, including dining room, bathrooms, study, kitchen, bedrooms, living room, hallway, etc. It also included an unusual location for an unusually painted bookshelf, the number of shelves, the precise shelf and precise location of a specific book (in a bookshelf with over 100 books), and the author and cover design of that particular book.
When I used to tell this story, I would describe it in more detail, and people would respond saying, "Oh, that's just a coincidence." Then I started telling it as I did above and asked a simple question: "Tell me what I saw." So far, in 20 years, nobody has gotten even one detail correct.
Recently, I asked two philosophers - tenured professors in major philosophy departments, one a physicalist, the other a panpsychist. Both simply said there wasn't enough evidence for psi, so they didn't accept any of it. They both also acknowledged, upon my questioning, that they had never looked at the evidence, they just had a feeling it was not possible. This was excellent as my simple question saved me possibly weeks of useless conversation.
2. Recognize that it is the nature of our modern, separative consciousness to have great difficulty accessing psi phenomena. There are very clear, step by step instructions for accessing a state of consciousness to which psi is natural.
About 20 years ago, I had the occasion to briefly communicate with arch debunker Arthur Reber. In the course of him telling me psi was impossible, and thus there was no need to examine evidence (sound familiar?) because it "violated the laws of physics" (15,000 of the 25,000 physicists in the US now believe psi is compatible with the laws of physics; the others mostly haven't given much thought about it, so it's hard to find a physicist who agrees with this) - in the course of our conversation, I noted that learning to turn attention to the Silence underlying all thoughts is the key to psi ability. He responded, "I love the "riot" of my thoughts and don't want to change them at all.
THAT is the underlying key to psi opposition.
So here's the technique, as outlined by Tibetan Buddhist teacher Alan Wallace:
1. Resting the breath in the breath. With complete relaxation, simply allow the attention to rest in the breath, without any manipulation or effort. when you can do this without losing contact with the breath for at least 24 minutes, go on to step 2.
2. Resting the mind in the mind. Similarly to above, simply being with the flow of thoughts effortlessly with no effort to control them. Do this for 24 minutes, on a regular basis, without getting lost in thought, then go on to step 3.
3. Resting awareness in awareness. Simply recognize the open, spacious awareness underlying all experience. No manipulation, no strain to concentrate. Being able to effortless rest this way for several hours, then at the final stage of "Samata" (equanimity), having contact with this ope spacious awareness throughout one's day, and ultimately, through dream and sleep, go on to the final step.
Turn attention around and inquire, silently, without thinking, "What is it that is aware?"
At this stage, psi is not only automatically accessible, but it will be used in conformity with wisdom, love and compassion.
In case you want to rush into this, Alan has asked Buddhist teachers around the world if their students have reached this final stage. He said most estimate there may be 4 or 5 people on the planet at this stage.
And no, Osho was not one of them:>)))) Nor is Deepak Chopra!
I laughed at loud at arch debunker. That paper (promoted by the skeptical inquirer) is tasteless, unscientific (quite literally the antithesis of Science), a poor reading of quantum information theory.
Thanks. My other favorite term (materialists hate it so I have to be careful not to overuse it) is from philosopher Neil Grossman: "Fundamaterialist".
What is mind?
No matter.
What is matter?
Never mind.
****
A professor once gave a lecture about his personal beliefs, and at one point, declared he was a solipsist. At that, a woman leaped to her feet and exclaimed, "Thank God! I thought I was the only one."
****
And I suppose this is not really philosophy, but it is thought provoking, courtesy of Groucho Marx:
Bravo, Charles! You are inviting us as partners in an investigation. More than an investigation, a journey to a wider reality. More than a journey, a collective co-creation of that wider reality. We're all creating reality whether we know it or not. I feel privileged to be part of a community doing this consciously, with intent, deciding together in what kind of world we wish to live.
I'm not sure what the name for this effect is, but...
It seems to me that intuitive knowing works *in the moment*, only. And each moment is fundamentally unique, relational, unscripted.
As soon as we set up an *experiment*, of any kind, we step out of the always-unfolding weaving of the pattern into an intentionally-artificial frame of reality, where proving or disproving a hypothesis takes precedence over the dynamic reality of what is actually happening or being revealed. We are asking to observe the underlying structure of the pattern, rather than allowing it to weave unimpeded. And perhaps by focusing on the structure, we are then, in a way, confining the result.
I think I'm proposing a "level five - there is no experiment". And at this level are all of those phenomena, like near-death experiences, where we allow reported, direct experience to inform our models of reality, with no attempt at experimental design whatsoever.
This essay articulates something I’ve been experiencing directly through my self-work with the Field Project curriculum (Philip Golabuk’s 8-week consciousness-as-cause framework, now taught by Mauricio Acevedo).
The parallels between your concept of “ontological shielding” and Field theory are remarkable.
Your core insight—that experiments are not just measurements but creative acts that can shift reality itself—is precisely what Field Project teaches through the lens of quantum physics and phenomenology.
When you describe how “the experimenter’s intention determines whether light shows up as particle or wave,” you’re pointing to the same observer-dependent reality that Field theory calls “correspondence”: what we take to be real about ourselves (our intentions) spontaneously manifests as conditions in our experience.
Your statement that “reality is a field that coalesces around our beliefs, our psychology, and our embodied state of being” captures the essence of Field Practice. Field Project would add: our intentions (comprising what we take to be real and that with which we identify) are the deepest structure.
Since identity is more fundamental than reality, every factual condition has its roots in a corresponding identity. When we write “I don’t have enough money” (reality statement), the root is “I am lacking money” (identity intention). This is why Field practice focuses on shifting identity, not managing facts.
Your “ontological shielding” maps directly onto what Field Project describes as the necessity of alignment over manifestation. When you say phenomena need to be “shielded from consensus reality” to develop, Field theory would say: counterintentions (beliefs that contradict our desires) dilute or prevent manifestation. Attempting to prove something to skeptics introduces skeptical consciousness into the experimental field—a counterintention that undermines the very phenomenon we’re trying to demonstrate.
The Spellers example is particularly striking. You write: “Synching shifts the autistic person from a reality in which he was cognitively incapable of using language, to one in which he is now—and always has been—cognitively capable.” This is identical to Field Project’s Many-Worlds framework: desired versions of self already exist in parallel realities. We don’t create them through will; we align with them through intention and refusal to counterintend.
Your warning that “frontal assaults on established reality rarely work” echoes Field Project’s core teaching: the aim of practice is alignment, not manifestation. We don’t use will to make things happen. We align with the version of self for whom the desired reality is already true, then release the rest to the Field.
I’m only in Week 1 (again) of the 8-week curriculum, but already the parallels between your work and Field theory are undeniable. You’re both pointing to the same ontological truth from different disciplinary angles: consciousness is cause, reality is relational and observer-dependent, and our experiments—whether in labs or in life—are creative acts that don’t just reveal what is, but participate in bringing new realities into being.
Thank you for this essay. It confirms what I’m experiencing and gives me new language for it.
Dear Charles, In my experience, the scientific method is great for learning about some aspects of 3-D reality. However, it leaves a great deal out. Having experienced and practiced the energy healing technique called Jin Shin Jyutsu, I have felt energy harmonizing under my hands in myself and clients. Similarly homeopathy works with an individual's energy system and is completely non-replicable, since each of us has a unique energy system which changes from moment to moment. How could you perform a double blind study if none of your subjects are remotely identical? These are just a couple of examples of alternative medical treatments that I have found to be efficient and effective but which happen outside scientifically observable reality. That doesn't mean we can't know about them. At the dawn of science, Goethe (yes the author) was fascinated by science and embraced all possible ways of observing, using all his senses and his intuition and all other ways of knowing. He embraced the living, breathing, changing nature of the world around us, and reveled in exploring it. Sadly, this holistic way of observing was set aside by "true science", in favor of the concept of observable reality. This is further reinforced by our noun heavy English language. Native American languages are more verb based. Imagine how differently we would all understand the world if we were always imagining, understanding and observing, honoring that everything changes all the time.
I love it…ontological shielding. And the other realities incubating until there is a “crack in the cosmic egg,” as Joseph Chilton Pierce said it (great book, BTW). We humans are coming closer to knowing our own potential as creators. ✨🙏🏻
My goodness. I am having a hard time penetrating this dense article.... But I want to! I love the premise and I usually love your philosophical explorations. It's just... This is literally challenging my read skills. Saving to attempt later and hopefully digest a bit more.
Don’t bother. It’s pseudo intellectual garbage. Rather than tackle real problems like poverty, addiction, misinformation, cuts in USAID that has resulted in thousands of deaths and the fact that the health secretary is an unqualified heroin addict antivax nut let’s spend some energy on a magic trick. What a waste.
This scientist, who has been "alone" for a long time, has experienced psi phenomena beyond the scope of everything I once knew. It continues, even this very day. I worry about "bragging" about today's updates, fearing they might go away. That sounds right. I'll let you know next week if they remain "true". What's cool is that I believe that "morphic resonance" and "social fields" could allow my "beliefs" (enough quote marks for you?) to spread. I honestly hope so.
Nonordinary reality studies actually began at least 200,000 years ago—the earliest signs of shamanism. The true shaman is born with the ability to activate chi energy, which allows them to explore nonordinary reality and meet the beings who live there. This ability cannot be learned—you’re born with it. Even if the shaman is born into a family that doesn’t practice shamanism, these abilities emerge, as they did in me. I grew up with abilities no one else had. I could remote view, leave my body, receive thoughts telepathically, and the whole range of abilities known to be shamanic. These abilities are inherited. I did not find out until I was 60 that I had 2 recent ancestors who were both indigenous shamans. The family was so ashamed of being Sami they wouldn’t tell us we were indigenous! Lutherans murdered one of them fr being a healer.
Why do people keep trying to study the paranormal with material science? The paranormal is nonmaterial! You can record it maybe, and do some interesting experiments, but non material reality cannot be explored with material science. Material science can only hint at its existence. But it cannot tell us what it is or why it exists. This is because all the experts in the paranormal were dismissed by Europeans as Christianity took hold. And this got worse when material science became the “only” way to understand all reality. Now the Church could say that all paranormal was from the devil.
Another great essay thank you Charles. It appears to me that consensus reality continues to take a big hit since the covid debacle as more & more people succumb to effects of the mandatory vaccines.
After 2 decades of Vajrayana Buddhist studies and retreats, I merged with solitude deep in the Australian bush.
It’s been over 100 degrees here for a week until the thunder storm and cooling rain last night. As I worked in the dewy garden this morning after reading this essay, I raised my head and beheld a cloud of newly hatched miniature mayflies. The cloud would spin in a tall funnel when the wind blew and disperse when the breeze gentled.
I was entranced. It danced!
As these years flow by, the line between the me and what I see is morphing into something yet unnamed or tamed.
Personal perspective from experience and curiosity: I think what is termed 'telepathy' is a natural process of gleaning, which might be how we learn to speak as children or learn languages. I was born with 60DbHL so couldn't hear speech well and subsequently still use "pre-verbal communication" ie observation of body-language, facial express, tone and other behaviours to work out meaning and sound. I think we massively under-estimate our brains and need to switch off "gleaning" or natural creative learning when verbal rote learning is taught at school. As a result of continuing to understand what people are saying until I got a hearing aid aged 30 I found I heard partly when I could predict what was going to be said. If something unexpected or out of context was said I'd automatically say "what" while processing the sounds and then understanding after a pause.
If this ontological shielding works to to allow new-paradigms to change consensus reality, at what point will the paradigm of objective reality be so eroded that this ontological shielding will not be necessary anymore?
Thank you for this, Charles. As we move further into a shift in reality, my brain really appreciates having a way to think about it and words to speak about it, if only to myself. Thank you for providing this legibility! I look forward to more from you on this.
As a clinical psychologist (and before that, 20 years as a composer/pianist) interested in these topics for 55 years, first - excellent set of deeply insightful observations.
Regarding whether or not to persist in speaking to skeptics, here's another view.
1. Have a quick "openness check" before engaging with a skeptic who claims, "I'm completely open, just give me evidence."
I sent the following to arch skeptic British psychologist Susan Blackmore, and with the stipulation, knowing she would not trust my memory, "Hypothetically, if the facts were as follows, would you accept this as evidence of psi," she answered affirmatively. Now, if you can find any reason to doubt all the facts, and can provide a reasonable scientific explanation for your doubt, please add it.
In the spring of 1977, several months after I moved into an apartment on 2nd Avenue and 9th street in NY City, I woke up from a dream, KNOWING I had been in my neighbor's apartment in the dream (though I had never been there in waking, and each apartment on the same floor had a completely different layout). I was enough of a skeptic as to spend at least 10 minutes on waking writing as much detail about the apartment as I could. This included:
The full layout, including dining room, bathrooms, study, kitchen, bedrooms, living room, hallway, etc. It also included an unusual location for an unusually painted bookshelf, the number of shelves, the precise shelf and precise location of a specific book (in a bookshelf with over 100 books), and the author and cover design of that particular book.
When I used to tell this story, I would describe it in more detail, and people would respond saying, "Oh, that's just a coincidence." Then I started telling it as I did above and asked a simple question: "Tell me what I saw." So far, in 20 years, nobody has gotten even one detail correct.
Recently, I asked two philosophers - tenured professors in major philosophy departments, one a physicalist, the other a panpsychist. Both simply said there wasn't enough evidence for psi, so they didn't accept any of it. They both also acknowledged, upon my questioning, that they had never looked at the evidence, they just had a feeling it was not possible. This was excellent as my simple question saved me possibly weeks of useless conversation.
2. Recognize that it is the nature of our modern, separative consciousness to have great difficulty accessing psi phenomena. There are very clear, step by step instructions for accessing a state of consciousness to which psi is natural.
About 20 years ago, I had the occasion to briefly communicate with arch debunker Arthur Reber. In the course of him telling me psi was impossible, and thus there was no need to examine evidence (sound familiar?) because it "violated the laws of physics" (15,000 of the 25,000 physicists in the US now believe psi is compatible with the laws of physics; the others mostly haven't given much thought about it, so it's hard to find a physicist who agrees with this) - in the course of our conversation, I noted that learning to turn attention to the Silence underlying all thoughts is the key to psi ability. He responded, "I love the "riot" of my thoughts and don't want to change them at all.
THAT is the underlying key to psi opposition.
So here's the technique, as outlined by Tibetan Buddhist teacher Alan Wallace:
1. Resting the breath in the breath. With complete relaxation, simply allow the attention to rest in the breath, without any manipulation or effort. when you can do this without losing contact with the breath for at least 24 minutes, go on to step 2.
2. Resting the mind in the mind. Similarly to above, simply being with the flow of thoughts effortlessly with no effort to control them. Do this for 24 minutes, on a regular basis, without getting lost in thought, then go on to step 3.
3. Resting awareness in awareness. Simply recognize the open, spacious awareness underlying all experience. No manipulation, no strain to concentrate. Being able to effortless rest this way for several hours, then at the final stage of "Samata" (equanimity), having contact with this ope spacious awareness throughout one's day, and ultimately, through dream and sleep, go on to the final step.
Turn attention around and inquire, silently, without thinking, "What is it that is aware?"
At this stage, psi is not only automatically accessible, but it will be used in conformity with wisdom, love and compassion.
In case you want to rush into this, Alan has asked Buddhist teachers around the world if their students have reached this final stage. He said most estimate there may be 4 or 5 people on the planet at this stage.
And no, Osho was not one of them:>)))) Nor is Deepak Chopra!
I laughed at loud at arch debunker. That paper (promoted by the skeptical inquirer) is tasteless, unscientific (quite literally the antithesis of Science), a poor reading of quantum information theory.
Thanks. My other favorite term (materialists hate it so I have to be careful not to overuse it) is from philosopher Neil Grossman: "Fundamaterialist".
What is mind?
No matter.
What is matter?
Never mind.
****
A professor once gave a lecture about his personal beliefs, and at one point, declared he was a solipsist. At that, a woman leaped to her feet and exclaimed, "Thank God! I thought I was the only one."
****
And I suppose this is not really philosophy, but it is thought provoking, courtesy of Groucho Marx:
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
Bravo, Charles! You are inviting us as partners in an investigation. More than an investigation, a journey to a wider reality. More than a journey, a collective co-creation of that wider reality. We're all creating reality whether we know it or not. I feel privileged to be part of a community doing this consciously, with intent, deciding together in what kind of world we wish to live.
I'm not sure what the name for this effect is, but...
It seems to me that intuitive knowing works *in the moment*, only. And each moment is fundamentally unique, relational, unscripted.
As soon as we set up an *experiment*, of any kind, we step out of the always-unfolding weaving of the pattern into an intentionally-artificial frame of reality, where proving or disproving a hypothesis takes precedence over the dynamic reality of what is actually happening or being revealed. We are asking to observe the underlying structure of the pattern, rather than allowing it to weave unimpeded. And perhaps by focusing on the structure, we are then, in a way, confining the result.
I think I'm proposing a "level five - there is no experiment". And at this level are all of those phenomena, like near-death experiences, where we allow reported, direct experience to inform our models of reality, with no attempt at experimental design whatsoever.
Charles,
This essay articulates something I’ve been experiencing directly through my self-work with the Field Project curriculum (Philip Golabuk’s 8-week consciousness-as-cause framework, now taught by Mauricio Acevedo).
The parallels between your concept of “ontological shielding” and Field theory are remarkable.
Your core insight—that experiments are not just measurements but creative acts that can shift reality itself—is precisely what Field Project teaches through the lens of quantum physics and phenomenology.
When you describe how “the experimenter’s intention determines whether light shows up as particle or wave,” you’re pointing to the same observer-dependent reality that Field theory calls “correspondence”: what we take to be real about ourselves (our intentions) spontaneously manifests as conditions in our experience.
Your statement that “reality is a field that coalesces around our beliefs, our psychology, and our embodied state of being” captures the essence of Field Practice. Field Project would add: our intentions (comprising what we take to be real and that with which we identify) are the deepest structure.
Since identity is more fundamental than reality, every factual condition has its roots in a corresponding identity. When we write “I don’t have enough money” (reality statement), the root is “I am lacking money” (identity intention). This is why Field practice focuses on shifting identity, not managing facts.
Your “ontological shielding” maps directly onto what Field Project describes as the necessity of alignment over manifestation. When you say phenomena need to be “shielded from consensus reality” to develop, Field theory would say: counterintentions (beliefs that contradict our desires) dilute or prevent manifestation. Attempting to prove something to skeptics introduces skeptical consciousness into the experimental field—a counterintention that undermines the very phenomenon we’re trying to demonstrate.
The Spellers example is particularly striking. You write: “Synching shifts the autistic person from a reality in which he was cognitively incapable of using language, to one in which he is now—and always has been—cognitively capable.” This is identical to Field Project’s Many-Worlds framework: desired versions of self already exist in parallel realities. We don’t create them through will; we align with them through intention and refusal to counterintend.
Your warning that “frontal assaults on established reality rarely work” echoes Field Project’s core teaching: the aim of practice is alignment, not manifestation. We don’t use will to make things happen. We align with the version of self for whom the desired reality is already true, then release the rest to the Field.
I’m only in Week 1 (again) of the 8-week curriculum, but already the parallels between your work and Field theory are undeniable. You’re both pointing to the same ontological truth from different disciplinary angles: consciousness is cause, reality is relational and observer-dependent, and our experiments—whether in labs or in life—are creative acts that don’t just reveal what is, but participate in bringing new realities into being.
Thank you for this essay. It confirms what I’m experiencing and gives me new language for it.
With gratitude,
Brenda
Dear Charles, In my experience, the scientific method is great for learning about some aspects of 3-D reality. However, it leaves a great deal out. Having experienced and practiced the energy healing technique called Jin Shin Jyutsu, I have felt energy harmonizing under my hands in myself and clients. Similarly homeopathy works with an individual's energy system and is completely non-replicable, since each of us has a unique energy system which changes from moment to moment. How could you perform a double blind study if none of your subjects are remotely identical? These are just a couple of examples of alternative medical treatments that I have found to be efficient and effective but which happen outside scientifically observable reality. That doesn't mean we can't know about them. At the dawn of science, Goethe (yes the author) was fascinated by science and embraced all possible ways of observing, using all his senses and his intuition and all other ways of knowing. He embraced the living, breathing, changing nature of the world around us, and reveled in exploring it. Sadly, this holistic way of observing was set aside by "true science", in favor of the concept of observable reality. This is further reinforced by our noun heavy English language. Native American languages are more verb based. Imagine how differently we would all understand the world if we were always imagining, understanding and observing, honoring that everything changes all the time.
I love it…ontological shielding. And the other realities incubating until there is a “crack in the cosmic egg,” as Joseph Chilton Pierce said it (great book, BTW). We humans are coming closer to knowing our own potential as creators. ✨🙏🏻
My goodness. I am having a hard time penetrating this dense article.... But I want to! I love the premise and I usually love your philosophical explorations. It's just... This is literally challenging my read skills. Saving to attempt later and hopefully digest a bit more.
Don’t bother. It’s pseudo intellectual garbage. Rather than tackle real problems like poverty, addiction, misinformation, cuts in USAID that has resulted in thousands of deaths and the fact that the health secretary is an unqualified heroin addict antivax nut let’s spend some energy on a magic trick. What a waste.
Keep trying. It's worth it. :)
This scientist, who has been "alone" for a long time, has experienced psi phenomena beyond the scope of everything I once knew. It continues, even this very day. I worry about "bragging" about today's updates, fearing they might go away. That sounds right. I'll let you know next week if they remain "true". What's cool is that I believe that "morphic resonance" and "social fields" could allow my "beliefs" (enough quote marks for you?) to spread. I honestly hope so.
Nonordinary reality studies actually began at least 200,000 years ago—the earliest signs of shamanism. The true shaman is born with the ability to activate chi energy, which allows them to explore nonordinary reality and meet the beings who live there. This ability cannot be learned—you’re born with it. Even if the shaman is born into a family that doesn’t practice shamanism, these abilities emerge, as they did in me. I grew up with abilities no one else had. I could remote view, leave my body, receive thoughts telepathically, and the whole range of abilities known to be shamanic. These abilities are inherited. I did not find out until I was 60 that I had 2 recent ancestors who were both indigenous shamans. The family was so ashamed of being Sami they wouldn’t tell us we were indigenous! Lutherans murdered one of them fr being a healer.
Why do people keep trying to study the paranormal with material science? The paranormal is nonmaterial! You can record it maybe, and do some interesting experiments, but non material reality cannot be explored with material science. Material science can only hint at its existence. But it cannot tell us what it is or why it exists. This is because all the experts in the paranormal were dismissed by Europeans as Christianity took hold. And this got worse when material science became the “only” way to understand all reality. Now the Church could say that all paranormal was from the devil.
Another great essay thank you Charles. It appears to me that consensus reality continues to take a big hit since the covid debacle as more & more people succumb to effects of the mandatory vaccines.
After 2 decades of Vajrayana Buddhist studies and retreats, I merged with solitude deep in the Australian bush.
It’s been over 100 degrees here for a week until the thunder storm and cooling rain last night. As I worked in the dewy garden this morning after reading this essay, I raised my head and beheld a cloud of newly hatched miniature mayflies. The cloud would spin in a tall funnel when the wind blew and disperse when the breeze gentled.
I was entranced. It danced!
As these years flow by, the line between the me and what I see is morphing into something yet unnamed or tamed.
Thank you, brother. ✨
Personal perspective from experience and curiosity: I think what is termed 'telepathy' is a natural process of gleaning, which might be how we learn to speak as children or learn languages. I was born with 60DbHL so couldn't hear speech well and subsequently still use "pre-verbal communication" ie observation of body-language, facial express, tone and other behaviours to work out meaning and sound. I think we massively under-estimate our brains and need to switch off "gleaning" or natural creative learning when verbal rote learning is taught at school. As a result of continuing to understand what people are saying until I got a hearing aid aged 30 I found I heard partly when I could predict what was going to be said. If something unexpected or out of context was said I'd automatically say "what" while processing the sounds and then understanding after a pause.
If this ontological shielding works to to allow new-paradigms to change consensus reality, at what point will the paradigm of objective reality be so eroded that this ontological shielding will not be necessary anymore?
Thank you for this, Charles. As we move further into a shift in reality, my brain really appreciates having a way to think about it and words to speak about it, if only to myself. Thank you for providing this legibility! I look forward to more from you on this.
Like Charles, I have ventured outside consensus reality, today in response to revelations in the Epstein files. https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/from-the-epstein-files-to-the-giza
Wow!