Tag Archives: intention

This is the most concise gist of key parts of first sight theory that I have been able to muster.

Psi is always going on at an unconscious level.  We are in touch with virtually everything, including a depth of reality that our senses did not evolve to perceive at all.  We consult that vast expanse of reality continually as we move from moment to moment.  These consultations involve pre-verbal meanings, not words.

We take one of two attitudes toward each element of that vast expanse of meanings at each moment.  We either move toward it or away from it.  We either move toward assimilating it in our responses (physiological, behavioral, experiential), or we move against it, rejecting it from our responses.

If we assimilate it, our responses will contain implications of that meaning at least a tiny bit more than they should by sheer chance.  If we reject it, our responses will avoid such implications more than they should by chance.

If that element of reality is significant enough to us in the moment, and across time, we maintain our unconscious attitude consistently.  If it is not significant to us, if it is “neither here nor there,” we are inconsistent in our attitude toward it.  We are in-different – we create no difference in our responses regarding it.

The more consistently we maintain our unconscious attitude, the more likely it is that the element will find expression in our response (physiological, behavioral, experiential).  The expression may be an assimilation or it may be a rejection, depending upon the direction of the attitude.

Both directional attitude and the consistency of attitude are determined by unconscious intention in the context of the situation in the moment.  Both are potentially predictable by features of the person (values, goals, needs, cognitive styles, mood), the situation (its requirements and possibilities and evocations), and the meaning itself (its desirability, usability, familiarity, importance, reliability, testability).  Hypotheses about the effects of each of these variables constitute the testable aspects of the theory.

The mind prefers more to less reliable information when constructing responses.  This is why sensory information is used more readily than extrasensory.  It is clearly available, memorable, testable.  Sensory contact is also preferred in acting upon things, as opposed to PK (non-sensory) influence.  When sensory engagement is blocked, but the information and action is otherwise important, we are more likely to see psi at work in responses.

Even when non-sensory engagement is expressed, it is expressed unconsciously and inadvertently.  We never precisely understand the meaning of the expression.