Dirk sends a clarification of question 3.5 He says there are at least three kinds of precognitive effects, the first of which you addressed, and the third of which he meant you to address:
- seemingly (but not truly) precognitive, “an artifact of our complex brain and body.” He describes it as anticipation, and says he agrees with your description, although his description and yours seem to me to refer to very different processes.
- immediately precognitive, which he describes as someone knowing that a thing is about to happen about 2.2 seconds before it occurs, and speculates that the transfer of sensory information could somehow be involved.
- But he was asking about something very different, true precognitive, preceding an event by minutes, hours or days. In his words, “I have frequently seen people respond emotionally or in feelings to events that will not happen for tens of minutes, hours, or even a day or two in the future. In some cases they seemed to be acting in unison…. In other cases [the event] was a true surprise to all involved. And in many cases I have noticed people changing emotional states and feelings well before the event happened.”
Okay, guys, what do you say?
This could open an interesting discussion of the meaning of “precognitive,” but perhaps that isn’t the overall direction the conversation aims to cover. Keeping our eyes on the question of feelings and their place in your lives results in a somewhat different inquiry.
For anyone interested in the question of intuitive/sensory interaction, we recommend looking closely at the supposed mechanics of perception. The 1/30th-second delay in what senses can register; the somewhat longer delay in what they report; the interaction between one’s 3D reporting and one’s non-3D reporting; the process of correlating the two data streams to produce a consistent sequential view of life – it all flows together to broaden one’s view of life, because it integrates 3D and non-3D perceptions, thus rendering a mechanistic 3D-only perspective obviously erroneous.
That’s quite a sentence.
And it would be quite an exploration, but it is not one well suited to your talents. It requires careful meticulous observation and reporting rather than broad-strokes overview. A scientific mind will find it simpatico; leave it to such.
Oh, I didn’t have any intention of pursuing it scientifically. I don’t have the inclination nor the skills nor the talents. So let’s move to Dirk’s third description, and look at true precognition.
Bear in mind, the focus is not on precognition as such, but on the role of feelings in precognition. That is a slightly different study.
The first fact that ought to be clear is that thought and precognition have nothing to do with each other. You don’t think your way into a precognitive experience; it comes to you on its own. Thinking is always too slow.
But can we say that we feel our way into a precognitive experience?
No, you can’t quite say that either. You neither think nor feel your way into a precognitive experience. You experience it, you don’t precipitate it. You receive, not cause. Can you see why it must be so?
I get a sense of it, but not clearly enough to conceptualize it.
- Your 3D consciousness is linear and time-space oriented, at least that is the default position.
- Information that comes to you, comes in pre-cognitive form. In this case “pre-cognitive” means “prior to thought.”
- Once something has made its way through or around your unconscious filters, it may be processed; not before.
- Neither thought as a process nor feeling as a process can deal with what has not been apprehended. Data processors do not function in the absence of data. This does not mean they don’t function in the absence of understanding of what they have perceived, however hazily. It means, until they perceive, they have nothing to work on.
- What you can do is systematically (or even accidentally, to some extent) prepare yourself to receive. Shamanic journeys are attempts to do just that.
Okay, I get it. A true precognitive experience is just that: pre-cognitive. By definition, we receive before processing. In fact, that’s so obvious now, I can’t quite see why it wasn’t obvious all along.
And yet we are discussing how people can react to what they have not yet experienced, and can do so either individually or in unison.
It’s funny how we can lose sight of the argument. Yes, I see the contradiction.
It isn’t so much a contradiction as a careful setting forth of the framework. What is impossible in a given frame of reference is proof that the frame of reference is at least partly and perhaps entirely erroneous. So, it is well to examine frameworks carefully.
The framework that precognition explodes takes for granted 3D life as an isolated phenomenon. Regardless if it assumes the reality of feelings as well as thought, it assumes that life can be explained sufficiently without taking into account non-sequential reality. If true precognition can exist, any explanation of life that rests upon sequential unity is obviously in error. Reality never breaks rules. If it seems to, it is because the rules are incomplete, or badly understood, or just plain wrong.
Here is what is easily forgotten. All discussion so far has proceeded as if reality is an ever-moving time-stream in which past moments disappear and future moments have not yet been created, and the momentary, oh-so-momentary “present” moment is all that is, only you keep jumping from present-moment iceberg to the next present-moment iceberg just as the previous one disappears and the next one forms. We exploded that model years ago, but “common sense” tends to bring it in again behind your back.
I remember. Your counter-conceptualization was one in which every moment of space-time exists and always has existed (I take it) although we are carried from one to another physically. You pointed out long ago that the iceberg-hopping model was not necessary once you realized that from a position outside of time and space, all such moments exist equally.
And given that your 3D-mind connects to all such moments by way of the non-3D mind you are never disconnected from (however inaccessible you may find it normally), you may at any time find yourself knowing what you could not know if life were what you assume it to be.
It seems so simple as long as I remember that framework.
And it seems equally simple to those who do not share it, only what seems simple – self-evident – is that true precognitive experience does not exist because it cannot exist.
Yes, theory conflicts with facts and so they cling to theory.
You needn’t say “they.” You all do it, most of the time. It isn’t even necessarily a harmful trait. You wouldn’t want to be discarding your understanding of life every time you saw something that appeared to contradict it. You’d want to be sure, or at least confident, that it was more than illusion you had experienced. However, there is such a thing as clinging too long to a model that ceases to explain.