Purpose of the RPK Experiment

Original post: 13 July 2009.
(Updated 17 July 2018: see PS below)
The blog posts below are a running account of an experiment that began on August 14, 1965. It has taken this long to get it this simple and for technology to be available.

The present design is a descendant of the 1980s "PK Party" (spoon bending) developed by Jack Houck. Its purpose is to experience and explain the phenomenon of remote psychokinesis and to understand its uncertainties.

We are attempting to produce an NCR (non-consensus reality) event in a CR (consensus reality) frame of reference in order to learn how to apply what physicist/psychologist Arnold Mindell calls The Edge between Physics and Psychology in his seminal work Quantum Mind, published in 2000. We believe that this process will lead us to a more mature understanding of our physical and psychological capabilities, which will in turn help us develop deeper social responsibility for our planet in terms of raising our individual and collective awareness. We believe that this will help transform societal attitudes from ideological needs to subdue, dominate or control each other or other beings of all kinds (animate and inanimate). We believe that this can happen only by partnering and supporting each other in raising our mutual awareness in creative ways.


PS. Rebecca Hardcastle Wright has given this experiment a clearer current explanation of purpose. In her Exoconscious Proposal: The Common Ground of Consciousness Science and Psychic Intelligence she writes "Today, extraterrestrial experiencers join growing numbers of vocal psychic experiencers: near death experiencers (NDE), out of body travelers (OBE), mediums, psychics and healers. Together these groups are urging, if not pushing, consciousness science to build a body of experiments and theories regarding consciousness as a non-local field. This growing psychic research has not gone unnoticed by classical scientists. Many of them are beginning to acknowledge consciousness as a fundamental field of reality... Exoconscious experiencers have living confirmation of the Extraterrestrial Presence. These experiencers have the potential to birth a social movement confirming the extraterrestrial presence. They have the power to propel the UFO/ET information mainstream in ways not possible with classical science."

Thursday, January 8, 1970

The Sighting + Experiment Dream Image?

[Original event: 14 Aug 1965]
Updated: 5 December 2009.

Mother came unannounced to see me at about noon on Saturday, August 14, 1965 at my home in San Diego. She came from her home in Corona del Mar, an hour's drive north on the California coast, having worried about changes that had begun to happen to her son over the last several months.

Earlier that same morning I awoke from a dream image that seemed to fit the three criteria I'd set for imagining the experiment that would resolve the conflict I was having between heart and head for my new passion for the reality of flying saucers. The criteria were that the experiment be simple, direct and experiential. I'd felt powerfully moved and influenced by Adamski's story, but unable to rationalize it from the perspective of my professional physical science training. This dream image actually embarrassed me because it seemed too simple and I couldn't take it seriously. I began to wonder if I'd wasted months on a fool's errand.

That said, something else had happened just the previous afternoon. [See previous post for 13 August.] I had fallen in love with a woman for the first time in my life and felt the enormous energy that accompanies such an experience.

Mother's unexpected appearance added a further complication. So, oblivious to misgivings she might have, I decide to introduce her to Kaye, who was waiting for me with her baby on San Diego's Pacific Beach. Anyone in love will recognize the sense of abandon and freedom one feels in such a state. Undaunted by her presence, it did not occur to me that Mother might find this introduction strange or inappropriate!

On our way back from the beach a few miles inland while driving my late father's VW camper with my mother in the passenger seat, I saw a fleet of craft that took my breath away. After the few moments it took to register what I was seeing I carefully asked Mother to look in the direction I was pointing until she saw what I was pointing to.

When she looked I heard her gasp "Good Grief!"

Pressing her for more specific acknowledgment, I asked: "Are you sure you know what you are seeing?"

"Yes", she answered simply.

"Are you sure it isn't something like weather balloons or swamp gas or strange cloud formations?"

"Of course not!" she snapped.

"Is there any way you can conceive that you could rationalize your way out of what you are seening years from now?"

"I don't see how," was her last quiet response.

"Thank God I've got a witness!" I whispered to myself. "And a hostile one at that," I thought without speaking.

Mother was now silent and stayed that way all the way back to my home and I was left with the strongest feeling that this sighting AND the dream image of the morning were connected and I'd better not forget it.

August 24, 2009

From today's perspective after more than 44 years, even though this sighting put my subsequent life into upheaval, which will be amply demonstrated in subsequent blog posts, the "Experiment" is still alive! See here.

The original dream image described above eventually morphed into two directions. In his 2000 book Quantum Mind, Dr. Arnold Mindell gives language to explain these directions in terms of CR [consensus reality] and NCR [non-consensus reality]. CR is the language of classical physics; NCR is the language of modern psychology. Mindell has managed to integrate these two diametrically opposed disciplines in terms understandable by scientists, psychologists, students and lay people.

The two directions into which the above experiment morphed are: remote psychokenesis [RPK] and the CREEI process of dream analysis. RPK has CR roots but has grown to include NCR. CREEI has NCR roots but has grown to include CR in its analytical methodology.

Another development from the above sighting has been a recent denial by my son Michael of his grandmother's account of that event. This surprised me greatly and we have yet to discuss it, but when I learned about it from his younger sibling John, I called all his older siblings who were alive at the time of the sighting, albeit young children [Katya, Nick, Jim and Steve] to confirm whether or not they had ever discussed this event with their grandmother. (Michael was born a year and a half after this event from a different mother). In each case these older siblings independently confirmed that they individually had asked her about the experience at different times and in all cases their report was the same: Mother never denied seeing such a fleet of UFOs in my company on that date, even though their recollection of her description was slightly different.

It occurs to me here to mention that only once before do I remember having a sense of certainty about an insight. That occurred during the first quarter in graduate school at the University of Utah sometime between the months of September and November 1960. It took almost three years to develop the experimental methodology and mathematical skills required to express this insight in a language others would understand. [See my 1964 University of Utah doctoral dissertation: "Origin and Growth Kinetics of Calcite Decomposition Nuclei"] Had not that experience been so clearly successful, but uncertain until the very end, I doubt I would have had the confidence and tenacity to stick with this insight regarding the morning dream and the afternoon sighting to this day.

God alone knows what is yet in store!

Flying Saucers Fascination

23 April 1965

On April 23, 1965, I received a book that Howard wanted me to review, recently written by his nephew Frank B. Salisbury. Frank B. was a well regarded plant physiologist at Colorado State University and a believing Mormon. He was trying to reconcile his faith with his science and I wasn't much interested in his rationalizations. That is, I was not interested until I read his chapter on Flying Saucers.

I was surprised to learn that this subject, which I'd heretofore considered to be silly and a result of mass hysteria, was not new. Frank B spoke the kind of language I understood and presented his arguments carefully and systematically, like any good scientist. He ended his presentation with a plea for serious people to examine the evidence thoughtfully. In particular he suggested that one approach the Old Testament with an open mind and consider the images of things sighted in the sky without concern for the text's explanation. Then compare those descriptions to those easily available in the modern press accounts.

This argument intrigued me and prompted me to contact my Air Force officer brother Virgil for inside information. What can you tell me about this phenomenon from inside USAF sources? I asked him. I was not interested in further newspaper accounts. Virgil grudgingly complied and in a few weeks presented me with few newsletters written by a man named George Adamski, who had lived near Mt. Palomar, which was near where I was then living in San Diego. Adamski claimed to be a "contactee" of space beings and these newsletters were written to his followers.

Virgil was adamant about his opinion about Adamski. "The guy is a kook", he said. "This is all I've got for you", he declared and then informed me he would not pursue topic further. But that was enough for me. When I read the newsletters my interest deepened. Maybe the guy is a kook, I thought, but it didn't seem so to me yet. I then discovered that Adamski had written three books, all of which were in the San Diego City library. They were: Flying Saucers have landed; Inside the Space Ships; and Flying Saucers Farewell.

I checked all three books out and read them immediately. Their emotional impact on me was enormous. "This guy isn't making this stuff up!" I said to myself. But I couldn't get my rational mind around it. My heart was shouting "Pay attention to this!" But my scientifically trained head couldn't take it in. I needed to talk to Adamski directly to see if the guy came across to me eye ball to eye ball as he did in his books. So, I began a search to find and talk to him.

It didn't take long to find out where he had last been, which was Bethesda, Maryland, where he had died! But get this date: He died on 23 April 1965, the very day I received Salisbury's book and my interest in the subject was sparked!!

The synchronicity spoke to me with power.

Tuesday, January 6, 1970

Vic Cline's Tests

Summer 1961 at University of Utah

Reflecting on Oscar McConkie's startling prophetic blessing, which I had silently challenged at first and then accepted, I decided to seek out my old friend from Army Language School days, Victor B. Cline, now a professor of psychology at the U of Utah. Vic had always been willing to help me "find myself" in my new role as soldier as far back as 1953 when we first met as fellow Mormons at the Pacific Grove Ward on the Monterey Peninsula. I was a new 19-year-old student at the Army Language School and he was a staff psychologist at nearby Fort Ord.

Now, as a second year graduate student at the University in 1961, I came to him with a next level "find myself" request. "What can you tell me about myself that I don't already know?" I asked.

"Wow", he replied, "no one comes to me with that kind of question. If you are serious, I'll give you everything I've got!"

It took several weeks for the scores to be processed and results returned to Vic. When he called me to review results, his first words were something like, “You are the screwiest guy I have ever measured! You don’t fit any standard patterns.” Then he systematically took me through the results of each test. The ones I remember now are:
1. The Minnesota Multiphase Personality Inventory (MMPI);
2. The California Personality Indicator (CPI);
3. Intelligence test;
4. Comparative interest test

Regarding test 1 (MMPI), I recall he said something like, “The results of this test suggest you are the perfect profile of mental health.” To which I remember saying aloud (with tongue in cheek), “Thank God! I thought I was paranoid!”

Regarding test 2, he explained that my pattern was highly unusual because of two strong peaks in it that usually did not appear on the same person’s chart to the exclusion of all others. I recall there were a bunch of categories, maybe 10 or so, and that there was a median score line with a standard range above and below the median that were considered “normal” limits. What evaluators looked for typically were any scores either above or below this normal band. Vic showed me that I had two very high peaks above this band and one slightly below. He explained that the first high peak measured “will, drive, determination, etc.” and that my score was in the high 90s percentile. The second peak, he said, literally went off the chart. It was a category called “flexibility”. He further explained that it wasn’t unusual for one to evidence one or the other of these particular peaks, but not together in the same person. He said he thought this indicated the “creative personality” and that he wanted to follow my career to find out how this would manifest itself over time. As for the 3rd peak which was somewhat below the normal spread, he said that this was a measure of “sociability” and that the negative value indicated a “tendency to withdraw.” I remember not taking it very seriously by saying, “Oh, I think that means I just don’t like wild parties.”

Regarding test 3, he said that my score was that of the typical U of U engineering student, to which I replied that that was what I expected (I was super sensitive to intelligence tests in those days, i.e., I didn’t think I was very bright.). He said that he would have gone to the next test results without much further thought, except that he noticed some irregularities in this particular test’s details. First, he said, the test was timed (3 hour maximum) and designed so that people generally do not finish. But he observed that I finished and walked out 30 minutes early. Further, the test was structured so that the easy questions were at the beginning and the difficult questions were at the end in increasing and abstract difficulty. He was surprised that I had answered all the last questions correctly, but that I had failed a long string of the simple ones, so that the overall score evened out with a mediocre value. “Tell me, Gene”, he said, “What does it mean, the early bird gets the worm?” Or “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”? I remember being shocked by his then showing me my score with what appeared a deliberate scoring wrong on such a series elementary questions. I do not recall having deliberately missed such obvious and simple-minded questions. But then a light dawned in me and I remembered that I typically had trouble with tests in my classes, usually starting by flunking the first (usually easy) tests and then having to scramble at the end to make up for the deficit to get a superior grade. It seemed like some kind of unconscious mental blocking process was at work in me. THAT was news to me, and was certainly something I did not know about myself. Vic thought that my success in my classes was often due to my having “seduced” my professors, since I invariably went to see them after not testing well at first. (I remember I would often freeze during tests for classes such as physics and physical chemistry).

Regarding test 4, a comparative interest test, which compared one’s interests to those of various professions. My interests tallied with those of industrial executives rather than scientists or engineers. That was interesting to me, too, and another something of which I was not already aware.

Vic had clearly shown me several useful things I did not know about myself at the time. When crunch time came a little over four years later, he had apparently forgotten all about these results.