TELEPATHY: AN ESSAY
Edward E. Rochon
Edward E. Rochon on Shakespir
Telepathy: An Essay
Copyright © 2017 by Edward E. Rochon
Thank you for downloading this eBook. This book may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, unless prior permission is given by the author.
Your support and respect for the property of this author is appreciated.
Some Other Works by the Author
[American Ethics: An Essay
American Theodicy: An Essay
Apocalyptic Timeline: An Essay
Atheism & Fraud: An Essay
Biblical Exegesis & Fraud: An Essay
Biblical Riddles: An Essay
British Israelism: An Essay
Contra Nominalism: An Essay
Contra Pantheism (Atheism): An Essay
Cosmic Despair: An Essay
Deist Check Off List
Divine Irony: An Essay
Epicurean Fraud: An Essay
God & Square Roots
God & Square Roots II]
[Inquisition of Christ
Joy of Life in Verse
Misery of Life in Verse
Pyramid of Ed
The Second Coming: An Essay
Table of Contents
A brief summary of reasons to support the existence of telepathy, its form and methods constitutes the body of this essay, along with some valid reasons for scepticism.
The devil and angel on either side of our cartoon characters represents a particular dynamic and controversy on how telepathy affects human behavior. That angelic beings, God, and the gods have telepathic power is generally a given in culture throughout recorded history. There are the sceptics, perhaps the majority of today’s people in developed countries due to the influence of empirical science. We also have assertions that Rosicrucians, wizards, witches and shamans in general have telepathic powers in particular.
My position is affirmative on telepathy as a factor in life. There actually is empirical evidence to back it up if you take eyewitness (sic) [mind witness] testimony. The sceptic dismisses this without proof as inconclusive or delusional. Inconclusive it certainly is; whether all instances are delusional is an opinion without solid bases. Eyewitnesses have always been deemed evidence in courts of law, though admittedly somewhat dubious as to reliability. But reliability certainly does not prove third party perception. We concede there is also a strong motive for fraud on the matter of telepathic power. We also perceive a strong motive on the part of materialists and sceptics to deny out of hand anything that smacks of the immaterial.
Chapter 1: The Supposition
We would be surprised to hear that just about any atheist or committed materialist sceptic would deny that thoughts pop into their heads from time to time without any motivation upon their part.
Supposition of Unsolicited Thoughts: We exclude telepathy as inclusive of human conversation by language, signs or mechanical devices that have an objective manifestation to multiple parties. Nobody denies these, though all communication has an aspect of telepathy in that something from outside of us is transiting in some manner a distance between the source and the recipient of that something communicated. This can be very far away when working through telecommunications.
With respect to unsolicited thoughts we have a mechanical explanation at hand. We can wish or will to imagine thoughts as memories of past times or imagined future times or as commentary upon the present moment. We have a stimulus/response excitation. It is 2017 and we see a man reading a paper dated 1938 discussing the annexation of Austria by Germany, perhaps with a picture of Nazis and Hitler. This is odd. We start thinking of Hitler and the 1930’s without any impulse other than that the event stimulated it. We may suppose this man is playing a mind game. He, for some reason, wants you to think of Hitler and Germany at the present moment. By insuring through location, time and rustling of newspaper pages, you see what he wants you to see. He has to some degree of probability made you think of what he intended. He does this without direct communication in speech or visual aids. True, the newspaper is visual, but there is nothing at the moment of display that indicates that this is a particular message to the passerby. It appears to the passerby that it is coincidence, though it is not.
Without any overt mechanical communication, he has likely engendered thoughts in your head. With telepathy we must suppose the listener is paying attention or not. Perhaps he is sleeping, and any messages that might get through are conflated with a dream. We generally do not think of dreams as telepathy, but only our mind mulling over whatever it may instill in our consciousness. We can think of this as a mechanical event, some neural process, or something inspired by God or angels or the cosmos. In the latter cases, that would be telepathy. But the proof of it would also be subjective and disputable by sceptics.
To limit a short essay, let us look at common assumptions present in the past of the Anglophone speakers typically found in the West.
The prophets received communications from God by telepathy, though often by angelic visitation, whether as vision or real being. A vision would still be telepathy. The assumption was that angels and demons possessed some telepathic power that could plant thoughts in the mind to tempt, cajole, inspire or inform. There need be no mentioned addresser. A wicked thought pops into the head. You could say it was your own lust, or inspired by Satan. You could pray for divine guidance, and your own thoughts might be deemed the means of God’s response. So though your own thoughts, still inspired by God and telepathic in that case. In this case we would solicit from God, but not from Satan, a dialogue.
Supposition of Validity of Evidence: There is a great deal of evidence throughout history of people claiming that thoughts were placed in their heads, often controlling thoughts. The sceptic rejects these as delusional without any objective proof. To be sure people lie, people dream awake and asleep. Thoughts are objective to the thinker but not to the second and third parties. Even a mind reader might suppose that his readings might be false apart from conviction in the form of faith in his powers. On the other hand, the sceptic, as sceptics so often are, is convinced as a matter of doctrine that the immaterial does not exist. One wonders why his scepticism of his own opinion might not be subject to scepticism. But everyone knows that sceptics are reasonable people and cannot admit to what cannot be perceived with the senses! Some idiots even deny that consciousness exists. How could it? Immaterial things do not exist because sceptics say so and that is rationally a fact. Except that it is not proven and not a rational fact. It is a belief of many sceptics. We may hope for a few more astute and honest sceptics.
Supposition of Insanity: A major problem with eyewitness evidence is that a great many of those reporting telepathy are emotionally distraught and their notions of what is happening far fetched by the details given. Let the sceptic concede the assertion for a minute with respect to the mentally disturbed. Quite often these poor souls are harassed by their voices or visions. Often they are incited to do dangerous or questionable deeds. Now with respect to insanity, would it not be fair to say that such telepathy as described would in itself cause great distress, the cause of mental illness? We have people deprived of a good night’s sleep often, of silence in their own thoughts. We have real cases of people committing suicide due to bullying harassment in schools, suffering depression, nervous breakdowns, generalized feelings of persecution. So the distraught behavior is not abnormal at all under the circumstances but entirely reasonable as to the effect, and the effect strongly encouraging the tormented to escape such persecution.
Moreover, we can say categorically, that in and of itself, the ability of the mind to form thoughts by auditory imagination (hearing voices), eidetic imagery (visions), smells attached to words, images or not (olfactory ‘hallucinations’) is not in and of itself a product of a disordered mind, but only of a great potential to expand human intellect, heightened consciousness of intellectual possibilities, and the ingrained striving for greater wisdom and the attendant power deriving from that.
Having said that, we need to discuss how telepathy may come about:
One: Immediate Telepathy
Two: Mediate Telepathy
Three: Imagined Telepathy
3(a): Locally Generated But True
3(b): Locally Generated But in Error
Immediate Telepathy: This is the common notion of telepathy. Two or more parties communicate at a distance by some indefinable power directly into each others psyche. We can suppose through the matter of the brain, or directly. In either case, the thoughts will influence the body in some way and that through the brain.
Mediate Telepathy: This supposes a third party operating to create the appearance of telepathy. Let us suppose that men do not have telepathic powers innately, but angelic powers do. These angelic powers can place thoughts into the human mind. So men are receivers of telepathy but not transceivers (capable of transmitting and receiving thoughts at a distance.) Now, also, we know that on a purely empirical basis, that outside factors can pop thoughts into the mind without any direct cognition of the receiver: that this is the case. Thoughts just pop into the mind. He may or may not be manipulated by persons altering the environment to do this. It could be coincidence or by design. In this case, the human receiver likely believes he possesses telepathic powers, though he is only a receiver, and it is the angelic being who is activating his perception. The most foolish sceptic must admit that the psyche has the ability to receive whatever comes into its consciousness. We do have the doctrinaire atheist idiots now claiming consciousness does not exist, though this consciousness is objectively experienced by all, and logic is entirely coherent with this empirical knowledge. To call consciousness a delusion is delusional and all evidence supports this, empirical and logical. There are some possible consequences of immediate telepathy in terms of malevolence of preternatural powers that will be the topic of Supposition of Malevolence below.
Imagined Telepathy: Here we imagine a telepathic communication that is actually an internal imaginative process. But where do our thoughts come from? Our atoms that make up our body come from without. Why not our psychic attributes? That being the case, what is the difference between inner and outer psychic forces, and so of thoughts and telepathic communications in general? A damning attack against materialist pretensions is that if atoms come from without, then why not psychic monads of thought? And that being the case, a universe of matter should be suffused with a universe of consciousness. Nothing comes from nothing. Well not if you are rational, but then what does rationality have to do with empiricism? So a universal psychic energy is the equivalent of the all-pervasive force of God as immaterial universal mind. But the fools keep on insisting that inanimate matter somehow magically becomes animate by coincidental, serendipitous circumstances.
3(a): Locally Generated But True: Moreover, suppose the imagined thoughts of our target are largely true. We have telepathy by mirroring.
3(b): Locally Generated But False: How many times have people talked to each other at cross purposes? We argue for half an hour only to agree that there was no real quarrel. We simply misunderstood each other though speaking largely in plain English (language.) That being the case, might even this be considered valid mirroring telepathy. And by the way, who has established where our own thoughts and imagination come from? We did not make our own bodies, and surely not our own minds.
Now we will discuss why apparent evidence refuting the paranormal can be deceptive by the very premise of malice in the paranormal world:
Supposition of Malevolence: The Bible condemns mediums, clairvoyants operating independently of God, consorting with preternatural powers in any form, whether telepathic or through evil doers in the flesh. The reason is that these forces oppose God and hate humanity. It does not condemn divination, prophecy, vision, the existence of spiritual beings. The idea is to be in communion with God in every manner when in communion with such factors, beings, and forces. We suppose malevolence in the occult world. Look how this would surely, and does, work:
Satan places the thoughts of a third party in the mind of a medium. The medium supposes he has telepathic power but does not. The myth buster tests the medium. He does not find corroborating evidence to support the power. Since the medium had no power in the first place, this is not surprising. Satan can hide behind atheism that is doubt, disbelief; he can hide behind false religion based upon misplaced faith. See how the evidence supports the results. The medium is convinced of his powers because they are real but through a medium power not his own. Medium, as the name implies, supports this ironically. The sceptic is validated because Satan pulls his power away from the medium to both persuade the medium and the doubter of their respective opinions. Both are in error as the deceiver wishes. Both people serve his interest. So we see that a malevolent spirit is in accordance with the evidence in both cases.
The sceptic says, “But how can you prove this?” We say, “How does your scepticism disprove it?” We go to the concluding remarks.
Chapter 2: Justified Faith, Unjustified Doubt
A man accepts the Bible on faith. Suppose he also avers that his long reading of biblical passages, those that appear complementary and those that appear in conflict, have convinced him that the very body of the scripture has an internal empirical logic. He notes that the Bible is sacred and great care has been taken in transcribing it throughout history. He points to numerous archaeological evidence backing it up. As a matter of logical consistency, though faith is not founded upon logic, the sceptic should not expect his scepticism to turn the believer from his faith. Only infallible logical arguments would do this. And these simply do not exist except in the delusions of atheists who trick others and themselves.
A man of scepticism should be duty bound to be sceptical about all that he is sceptical about. That is, his weapons of doubt turn back upon the doubter. It is reasonable for the man of faith to demand this of the sceptic. At best, sceptics mealymouth about this, or blatantly and falsely claim that scepticism and empiricism are logically validated. In spite of the fact that empiricism itself demonstrates that empiricism cannot be a final arbiter of truth, they cling to their delusions. Why not? Their lust demands the removal of truth from the assembly of men. Liars must cling to Nominalism, Empiricism, the conflation of the immaterial with the material, whether through the drivel of Idealism after the fashion of Bishop Berkeley or after the fashion of David Hume. Spare me the nonsense that Bishop Berkeley was a Christian. Liars must lie to sustain their lust over truth. They want what they want, rather than want what is good for them, what is truthful. Truth is pain to them, so Nietzsche claims that higher culture is founded on cruelty. Cruelty destroys the polity of men, but truth is painful to the deluded Nietzschean fool.
How pathetic that a liar such as Oswald Spengler believed that culture is founded upon blood, and civilization upon money, yet claimed to be a philosopher of history. Does not every lover of wisdom know that stable civilization, healthy culture is founded upon wisdom? Money has no value without wealth generation. Wisdom is the primary pump for productive work, and prudent frugality that makes and retains wealth and so the value of money. As for blood, it did not save Abel from Cain’s wrath, or any of the equivalent murders in history. We are all made of the same clay, but not one in spirit. Man is mind, and what is not mind is not man. Wisdom is a tree of life, and life is based upon eternal principles and the uprightness of behavior. Time is a straight line, rectitude manifested in history. Liars believe only in deluded cycles that do not exist. The wheels spin round and round, but the bus of history follows the straight and narrow, for life is real, even the lying life of villains. The road to hell or paradise is down the road. Veer to left or right, and delusion of lies and hell fire await you. Your broad road is the road of fraud and evil.
We can say these things on the subject of telepathy:
One: It is not in my interest to reject it out of hand.
Two: There is no proof that it does not exist.
Three: Men throughout history have believed it as a majority opinion.
Four: It is a lie that scepticism creates virtue, peace or any good thing.
Five: Scepticism is the creed, yes creed, of a fool, not logical necessity.
One, if my mind is or can be influenced by perverse spirits, I should consider this as background consideration when dealing with disparate thoughts, Jungian Synchronicity or its apparent synchronicity. Better safe than sorry is the logical assumption. It is in my interest.
Two, there is in fact no proof and cannot be to disprove my assumption of telepathy.
Three, men have accepted the supernatural throughout history. Only brief periods of the ascendancy of pure atheism have existed. We see these regimes filled with violence and evil: Pol Pot, the cruelty of the Russian and Chinese experiences with atheistic communism. How dare the sceptics blame Theism for evil!
Four, what is it that makes a sceptic more honest than a believer? Nothing. Why not be cynical in scepticism, deny morality as a delusion, etc. and glory in evil, there being no evil? What does God or no God have to do with human greed, desire to get through war what lust demands, desire to live in peace? Nothing. What prevents error, superstition, whether you believe or disbelieve? Nothing. No faith ever claimed that lies and evil do not exist, so the believer is as on guard to these as is the sceptic. In fact, the deniers of personal divinity, are more likely do deny the existence of evil, claiming only intellectual error causes misfortune, or objective evil as interpreted as human pain and misery. The evidence supports the converse. Plato was a duelist, but his idea of deity was more natural law of empiricism than father figure of the Bible. And this is more the case with outright materialists and atheists. If scepticism deludes you about the honesty of another man, you still may delude yourself about his motives. If you do not act out of doubt contrary to your own well being, you afflict and delude yourself at the same time. In fact, the sceptic is more inclined to self-deception than the man of faith. The sceptic can dispute this; I will go with my own empirical observations, thank you.
It is not in my interest to be a sceptic. There is some satisfaction in being relieved of the burden of explaining evil and God’s provenance over history: theodicy. There is some satisfaction in seeing life as a meaningless crap game. At least the devil does not exist, or God as a devil or being who allows Satan free reign. Oh, Job, Job, how we sympathize with you. Poor Job, poor, poor Job! What’s it all about, Alfie? Is it wise to be cruel? But it is not in my interest to believe God is evil, and I cannot prove it. A little pain now may cure the disease now to the happier cure of future good health. Why question God’s intent? What do I know? Why not look for remedies rather than the why of why I am sick? Why did not Job do what he was told? God told him to gird himself and defend himself. What did he do? He put his tail between his legs and said nothing other than he agreed that he was ignorant and knew very little. But what does the depth of the sea have to do with Job’s question? And was it not to do away with his ignorance that Job wanted, demanded an answer from God? Is seeking wisdom a vice, or is wallowing in ignorance a virtue? The Bible refutes this. But Job sinned after the fact in disobeying God, not before the fact as with Eve. Yet, both Eve and Job disobeyed God. An omniscient being is free to punish both before and after, though a human judge would be a scoundrel to do so. He cannot prove what God knows by omniscience. The Tom Cruise thing of minority reports is also highly questionable. Who cares what some amniotic fluid soaked female zombie says is true? If you do not know what I am talking about here, check out Tom Cruise’s filmography.
So the case for telepathic powers is cogent and advisable to accept. Thank you for the read, even the atheist idiots.
Other Works by the Author
Elements of Physics: Matter
Elements of Physics: Space
Elements of Physics: Time
Logic: An Essay
Space as Infinity: An Essay
Unified Field Theory: An Essay
Collected Poems I
Collected Poems II
Golden Age Essays
Golden Age Essays II
Golden Age Essays III
Golden Age Essays IV
Golden Age Essays V
My current biography and contact links are posted at . My writings include essays, poetry and dramatic work. Though I write poetry, my main interest is essays about the panoply of human experience and knowledge. This includes philosophy, science and the liberal arts. Comments, reviews and critiques of my work are welcome. Thank you for reading my book.
A brief preface mentions the devil and angel at either ear in the cartoon. We support the affirmative position on telepathy and proceed to offer arguments. Chapter 1 notes how unsolicited thoughts pop into the mind all the time and see evidence of telepathy in that fact. We see many eyewitness testimonies of telepathy that the sceptic rejects as delusional without objective proof. Eyewitness testimony is accepted in courts of law with some reservations. The question of insanity and mental illness of many eyewitnesses is expected from the nature of the matter, especially with hostile telepathy. What do you expect from harassed individuals but mental stress, resulting in degradation of faculties? We note three basic types of possible telepathy. One: Immediate, two: mediate, three imagined with true imagination and false imagination as subcategories. Immediate telepathy is the usual definition. Two or more people communicate at a distance with each other directly. Mediate telepathy supposes a mediate force. Suppose men do not possess the power but angelic beings do. The demon places thoughts in the medium to persuade him of his power, though it is actually the demons. Upon testing by sceptics, the demon withdraws the power to promote atheism as a means of promoting his demonic agenda. Imaginative telepathy would be a mirroring of thoughts of others in our own mind that may be true or false. But people often talk at cross purposes, misreading arguments, and yet they still communicate with each other. Finally, where do thoughts and imagination come from? Our atoms come from without; we may suppose our psyche has the same source. We do not make our own bodies nor our own minds. This fact would entail telepathy of a sort by default. Chapter 2 shows that assuming telepathy is the more reasonable assumption for the thinker. We show scepticism to be hypocritical. He should not expect the believer to accept doubt to refute faith, but the believer is justified in expecting the sceptic to turn his scepticism on its own scepticism. We give several reasons for rejecting scepticism on telepathy: not in our interest to reject it, no proof of it being untrue, the majority of men throughout history accept it, a lie that scepticism produces virtue and reason in men, and scepticism is foolish and ill-advised in general.