crane@fortune.UUCP (12/28/83)
I read both Tim Maroney's and Gary Samuelson's letters with interest. However, after weeding out the attempts to assert oneself by attacking or discrediting the other person, there wasn't too much substance left. I'm still trying to clarify for the net my original statements about the theme "Thou Art God". When I said the book changed my life, I did not mean that I bought every concept in the book. The book merely solidified and clarified my thinking about some of the philosophies presented in the book. Tim, I would classify the "ability to program", whether latent or not, as a SKILL, NOT an ABILITY. Seeing is an ability. Thinking is an ability. Moving your arms and legs is an ability. SKILL is a clever use of ABILITY. If you see a computer program, can make sense of it, and can move your arm enough to make any correctiong to it, and can still have a program that makes logical sense to somebody, that's a SKILL. Communication is one of the most basic abilities, but it is relative. How much can we communicate with? How undistorted is that communication? How many different channels does one have available to communicate with? How much communication can one tolerate? Can one communication freely in both directions: outward and inward? I would maintain that nobody fully utilizes all their communication abilities, and to the extent that there are unused communication abilities, there lie latent abilities. Communication is only one example, but it is so basic. Especially when you consider communication in a very broad sense: Talking to other people Listening to other people Controlling equipment: e.g. automobiles and computers Controlling ones own body Throwing or catching a ball Communication can also take place on many different levels: Intuitive Verbal Logical Emotional Sexual Physical
tim@unc.UUCP (Tim Maroney) (01/09/84)
I have waited since this article appeared, hoping that John would see my article on the irrelevance of psychic powers to religion, which is the real issue here. For whatever reasons, no reply has appeared. Therefore, I will respond to this article. The only issue that deserves debate in this article was the distinction between skills and abilities that was made by John. You see, he had said he was interested in "awakening latent abilities" in humans, a term to which I objected, since it is so vague as to render it meaningless. I asked whether my ability to program computers had previously been a "latent ability". John responded with an unsatisfactory division of the topic: Tim, I would classify the "ability to program", whether latent or not, as a SKILL, NOT an ABILITY. Seeing is an ability. Thinking is an ability. Moving your arms and legs is an ability. SKILL is a clever use of ABILITY. If you see a computer program, can make sense of it, and can move your arm enough to make any correctiong to it, and can still have a program that makes logical sense to somebody, that's a SKILL. I am not at all sure that this makes sense as stated. For instance, there is considerable psychological evidence that basic "abilities" such as seeing, lifting objects, etc., require the acquisition of what John would certainly call "skill". An infant must learn to focus his eyes, must learn how this world of objects works, and so on, before he can really be said to be seeing. From the other direction, I had within me already the "ability" to program a computer (hands, eyes, a brain capable of handling the task), requiring only the acquisition of certain "skills". Any willed operation requires both skill and ability. John then muddies the waters even more by calling communication an ability (not a skill). I would say that this is ridiculous -- it is obvious that not even the slightest communication is possible without both parties having a good deal of skill in use of a common medium. He then goes on to make an argument for the existence of "latent abilities" from the fact of the existence of multiple modes of communication. It seems clear, though, that all these are simply "as-yet-unlearned skills". I will try to clear things up here. Let us assume that there is a useful distinction between "skills" and "abilities". How, then, should the terms be defined? I propose the following: Any act is composed of both skill and ability. The "ability" is the possibility of the given being performing the act in the circumstances, without consideration of learning -- that is, the being is assumed to be "all-knowing" when determining its abilities. Thus, eyes confer the ability to see. Any ability is useless without "skill", which allows the possibility (ability) to be brought into reality by an act of will. Thus, the early movements of shapes in our visual fields conferred some skill to see. (Note that a skill is learned, but an ability is innate or acquired through some process other than learning, such as buying a car, which confers the ability to move at otherwise impossible speeds.) The question, then, is whether there exist abilities of which most humans are unaware, and thus unable to acquire skill in. Obviously there are, since there exist in the labs of many countries machines which are classified, which are as yet the only known way to confer the ability to perform certain tasks. Writing off these and similar mechanical abilities, we are left with what appears to be the basic question of psychic powers: Are there abilities conferred by the mere fact of human form which are unknown to most humans? (These are the things which I believe John is referring to when he mentions "latent abilities". The "latency" comes from the lack of skill with which to realize the abilities; one might acquire skill in these things and thus remove the latency.) The fact is that most of us can't answer that question, myself included. There simply is not enough evidence at hand. Many people are willing to write off the possibility because of the plain fact of fraud in most "demonstrations" of the existence of these abilities, but this is not a sufficient objection. Even if the powers did exist, so would the fraud, provided that it was easier to cheat than play fair (which it almost always is in religion and such matters), so the existence of the fraud proves nothing. (It does force us to adopt a healthy skepticism, though.) Many people have had experiences which seemed so unlikely to be explicable by "mere coincidence" that they affirm the experience of these abilities; but these people ignore the fact that humanity being the huge thing it is, these difficult-to-believe coincidences are bound to occur. It is only the scientific method which can put the lie to accusations of coincidence, and there has been little progress in scientific research, possibly because those who are trying don't know what to look for. (I might mention that the Thelemite uses the scientific method in his or her own development, and that part of this is the performance of ritual for desired ends and the evaluation of how well those ends were fulfilled in reality, but no "real" scientist that I know of would accept such things -- most are convinced that if these "hidden" or "occult" abilities exist, they are relevant to clean white cards in sterile labs, which seems a ridiculous proposition to me.) Finally, many people affirm the existence of these "latent abilities" because of what can only be called wishful thinking. (I originally accused John of this, a fact which I now apologize for and retract. I do not have enough evidence to make such a statement, and I am sorry that I did make it.) These people are mere daydreamers, and their attraction to these things which are so far from enlightenment will no doubt keep them from any significant attainment. I think I have laid a common ground for further discussion, with John and with others, here, and I would enjoy a good discussion on this topic after facing the absurd and entirely irrational partisan broadsides of Dave Norris, Gary Samuelson, and the others. -- Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)