Effect From State and What State is It?

The language being mistaken for what has been described may apply to ourselves as to the nature not only what we may be and what we may become. Krishnamurti described thought as a secondary process of cognition in the active tense. Perhaps we are seeking is a state rather than an effect if language is an effect rather than a cause that is processed through the mind and brain. This concept would seem to have an enormous potential of redefining both the relationships and the nature of effect. Note: After posting these ruminations of cross hybridization of states, as a sidebar to this posting, these findings on local quantum field effects are relevant to this content. Well worth a side step.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150046

The most recognized arbiter of state are what are termed emotions and in the quest for a steady state some have gone so far as to train the mind to bypass the issues created by this third hand driver that arises from thought or is this hierarchy of causation of state, thought and then emotion placed in the wrong ordering of their compounding relationships in terms of effect?
Undoubtedly emotional states predominate thought in terms of observable behavior. I cannot read your thoughts but I can read your state and as a friend told me decades ago, mode precedes communication.
In terms of assessing the valuation of the human state by the comparative visibility of their influence on behavior seems to be a sleight of hand as a participating driven effect cannot have the biologically derived mind to cease associations between them. Gurdjieff suggested death would ensue if anyone where successful in erasing them as they also are embedded in our sensory systems. It may be not so much that we learn behavior as we adopt it as a navigational instinct. I was once given an exercise. You take a watch with a second hand and while observing the sweep of it attempt to stop your internal chatter.
Perhaps we can consider the trans-receiving aspect of input and output of our energy as an effect solely due to external relationships and if this is so what does this say about the nature of memory and our active capability to recall previous situations in regard to our present state? Are we for the most part absent from what we experience? How much can we recall?
I would venture a guess that all of the above has a enormous influence on both suggestibility and the creation of phenomenon considered to be paranormal as most commentators unwittingly separate who has seen from what is seen. There is no material evidence of effect without an observer, and yet the lack of one does not mean that your heart stops beating. Yet this notion seems to drive contemporary physics. As if our state had a greater hierarchy in determining effect rather than we are simply carriers of effects ourselves. It is as if we are trying to anthropomorphize reality, wherein reality creates the anthropomorphic equally. All of this strikes me as being off topic to the actual situation that presents itself to us in terms of the paranormal.
The word medium can also denote a state and perhaps our state is that of a carrier wave interacting with pre-existing fields. All of this suggests the very same hit or miss issue with experimental results in various PSI studies.
Again I come back to the operand principal of mirrored realities ( note the plural connotation) that have no central dictionary akin to human language and hence all of the paranormal is hybridised by multiplication rather than division which harkens back to the fallacies of a divisor between mind and body.
All of this being ruminated upon as to the root(s) of paranormal experience suggests also an exchange of information which is also the hallmark of these realities in both material and non material forms as two sides of this exchange. One hand washes the other. The left side doesn't see what the right side is "doing"and vice- versa as an example of cellular intelligence, hence the random nature of effects.
All of this comes to mind when I watch so called predatory ghost hunters address absent "personalities" as if the defining of what they behave by does not have an effect on what they observe.
If belief is representative of a actually indeterminate state that constitutes a modality then it is no surprise that if you believe in demons, you will encounter one.  All of the effect is a third hand objectification of potential outcomes determined by language alone.