Topic [10] How much do rv methods program our minds? TKR Remote Viewing Forum July 2003

It is the intent of the Dojo Psi that the living-history of remote viewing's development in the public sector not be erased, revised, or otherwise lost to the vagaries of time. In this spirit, the dojo encourages, promotes, hosts and develops archives of online Remote Viewing activity. [Caveats] For current discussion on remote viewing, click the logo at the top of the page to visit TKR's big Remote Viewing Discussion Forum directly.

wizopeva, somewhere around July 11, 2003

I've been thinking a bit about how these diff rv techniques that have been mentioned might work.  For instance, in the 'TO name or to Describe' thread, Wee Wizard said:

"One of the "techniques" often used by a friend of mine is to write down the AOL information as descriptively as possible and then mentally let the image "release" or flow away. If it continues to return over and over, sometimes it is actually the target, other times there seem to be descriptors that have been left out. So apparently the technique is to continue writing down all descriptors until the AOL ish image fades away and is replaced by more and different data."

From my own training Lyn often tells us that by writing down stuff, you get it out of your system so to speak and will no longer fixate on it.  That's why we write down all aols and other misc thoughts that might come to the for.  Once we write it down, then we can stop thinking about it and move on.  And of course we are also encouraged to describe.

But does that method work because that is how rv works?  Or is it because LYn tells us that a lot of times and we believe and internalize it thus making it true by our own beliefs.  If he keeps saying it and then I keep saying it to myself, will that not then in some way program my subconscious mind to make it so?  And in the same way, someone else will internalize their own trainer's methods and so those may well work too, at least as long as that viewer has internalized them.

How much of this is really mechanics and how much is just plain old psychology?    

-E

River, somewhere around July 12, 2003

Hi Eva,

Now this is so interesting to me.

Being a newbie is a huge advantage in this area. (probably the [u]only[/u] area so I'll dive on it  ;-) ) We come in fresh but it doesn't take long to get indocrinated I can tell you!

When I first got into RV there was a guy who started at the same time and we got to be friends. We talked a lot about how ingrained certain ideas were in people who had been in RV for a length of time.

I started off doing targets on the net without having any training and no idea how to go about it. So I just did what I had always done to 'get information'. I focused on what I wanted to know and waited for the information to come.

It worked fairly well, considering, but I floundered around because I had no .......um.....direction.....  No structure.

Then I learn't CRV basics.

For the life of me I still can't figure out why people insist on doing ideograms when all you need to do is concentrate just like in the rest of the session. But ideograms are so ingrained into people. It is one of those MUST DO's

As far as I can tell ALL the methods are just simple tools to help promt the mind to do certain things. And this is just what I needed.  The methods set up a path of questions that need to be answered.

The path starts off with simple, general questions then gets more and more specific.

Now most teachers tell us that some points along that path MUST be followed or we will stray off the path.

Sounds a lot like school teacher and parents doesn't it. Well I guess it's the same in a way.

It helps to read the manual but it's not necessary for programing the video. But if all else fails read the instructions.  ;-)

But if you want to be a techno geek you had probably read up on every manual you can find until you know it all inside and out then throw them all in the bin and teach yourself.

PSI was in long before RV so IMHO there is nothing in RV methods that is necessary, let alone vital to viewing.  But certain aspects do help.  ;)

Some people cling to rules and some find their own. Special people know the rules and how to break them.


River RVer Liz

River, somewhere around July 12, 2003

OOps looks like I jumped tracks in the last post.

The question was.....

[font=Verdana]How much do rv methods program our minds?[/font]

My answer is 'lots' if you aren't careful.

Take AOL's for example.

Before I started RV someone could ask me to describe something I had never seen before.......say......the building they used to work in.

I could focus on the question and then an image would appear, clear as being there. I could 'walk' around the building discribing everything, even going inside and telling them what was in each room, what was on the shelves. I mean the detail was picture perfect. The only thing I ever had trouble with were time aspects. I might be seeing the building as it was prior to renovations for example.

The guy who I was talking about in the last post had similar experiences, all in living colour.

Now we both started reading on RV sites.
    We read in RV posts that you can't name anything because it's bound to be symbolic. You MUST describe what you see and state it as being an analytical overwhatsit. (AOL)

At first we both thought this was hysterically funny.

But then we both started Pru's CRV basics. Pru doesn't agree with the AOL idea and says all info is relevant, but she does agree on the idea that most of it is just symbolic.

So......first session..........we can't see a damn thing but symbols. Next session was the same. After a few more of not being able to see anything but symbols we both panick because we've lost our picture perfect, see the real thing, vision.

Pru was away at the time so we had no one to tell us what was going on. It was traumatic for both of us.

Then it dawns on us that we've been programed to beleive that what we see will be symbolic rather than the real deal.

I still haven't gotten over this programing and I KNOW it's programing. What chance would anyone have of overcoming it if they had no prior experience?

I'm willing to believe that proir to RV I just hadn't run into symbology yet, but I didn't seem to need it then so I'd much rather go back to not having it at all.

Liz

energycritter, somewhere around July 12, 2003

River, please allow yourself to jump tracks. it is in the track jumping that you mentioned that you have manifested your best and most affective RV or moments of knowingness or whatever anyone wants to call it.  :)

Poeple always need to put everything into a box (belief system) and then present the contents to others as if that is waht exists and from the box they can sell anyone what is needed.  :-/

In the act of, so called, jumping the tracks, you succesfully jump out of boxes and whatnot.    ;-)

Jump around, it can be the best way as well as a form of the "no-mind".   ;-)

If we structure our thoughts as mentioned from within the box, we then have a mind set, the un-no-mind. This mind set or program can be amazingly limiting to poeple that already express and manifest outside of the box where the real power is. It is often more subtle outside of the box, in a way, because, when outside of the box that everyone likes to be in, those that are in the box are not really sure how to stamp approval on what is done outside of the box, therefore the successes out there are subtle and almost seem incorrect and latent to those that claim to be the teachers of something they realy do not have a gift to teach or do. RV does have its own religious belief system, so to speak. It would be nice if that system can not be developed so fervently by those that feel at ease in the box or in the program. Granted, some, may always need the box or they can not function as an RV practicer.  :)

RV seems to be taking on a more and more rigid and linear dynamics. That can be detrimental to the developement of all who play. The RV moment itself is a function of the non-linear dynamics of the chaos theory, in a way, not meant to trigger controversy. Oh sure, some poeple will still have results while following the linear, predictable, over simplified programming that is claimed to be the "way, the truth and the life" of the given RV moment, but, as known by some, it is not always the way, etc.  ;-)

Humans tend to enjoy the binding and securing feeling the programming gives them. It can be comforting to the person's lower self. The higher self often enjoys jumping out of the box and playing where the real power is. That of course does require a few internal structures or spiritually manifest mechanisms that for many reasons, all do not have at their disposal or access.   :'(

So, in closing...River, keep on keeping on with the moments of the higher self, jump out of the box as often as you can, avoid following the track, it is walked on by too many. Follow the spirit of your moment and avoid the croud. High populations in a particuler area of thought, has never constituted or defined truth.  ::)

Be free, be good willed while jumping and go go go  ;-)

Get the information the way you know "you" are able to get it. "Know one knows the heart of a man, save the spirit that is in the man", sorry, that was a quote from an existing believe system, not implying absolute truth at all. I just thought I would toss that in there.  ::)

I babbled River, but, you reached inside of yourself when you jumped tracks and then you actually spoke from a greater location of truth for the moment that you were in. I guess I just wanted to water that a little for you so that it didn't dry up too much due to programs and methods. Try as hard as you can to get back to the way that you claimed you have somewhat negativly affected by allowing yourself to be programmed and told the way to go in order to get to the place that you have been many times before.  ;)   ;)

Try to avoid being dumbed down while trying to bring yourself up, if it is at all possible.   ;)

River has made some excellent points in his track jumping feets of bravery, courage and expression.   :)

The "Jungian Stew" (BW) is full of goodies. None of those goods are limited to a specific box or program, if they were, then why would the author have called it "Jungian Stew?"    ;-) ;-) ;) ;-)

Just trying to help.... ;)

BC the EC

River, somewhere around July 12, 2003

Hi Energycritter.

LOL I just ment that I had forgotten to answer the question. But your post was very inspiring.  Thanks;-)

River

energycritter, somewhere around July 12, 2003

Well, I understand what you meant, I just did a bad job of correctly connecting my intended inspiration then.

Be inspired....that is what I wanted.... ;-)

BC

Fire, somewhere around July 12, 2003

[quote]From my own training Lyn often tells us that by writing down stuff, you get it out of your system so to speak and will no longer fixate on it.[/quote]

That's part of the Swann methods logic, part of the learning-theory incorporated into CRV I think (not sure). It's been awhile lol.  In my experience writing stuff down has value because "If it's real, it'll probaby come back" (or something that relates to it will) and it easier allows trying to 'forget about it and move on' instead of getting hung up on something in the head.

[quote]But does that method work because that is how rv works?  Or is it because {snip} we believe and internalize it thus making it true by our own beliefs.[/quote]

It's a good question.  

I'm pretty sure for example that Joe doesn't write down every tiny impression that flits through his head.  His head is capable of doing a lot of combining, holding, integrating until something makes a decent amount of sense and then it's 'data' for him.  That's why he's always talked about understanding your own mind.

For example in the old Mars targets that Skip Atwater has on his website[1], Joe is doing a verbal session and says "Just a minute, I've got to iron this out. It's a little weird." and then he comes up with, "I'm looking at an aftereffect from a major geologic problem."  Anybody who does RV has an idea of the kind of mental facility required to 'process out to this' (he was putting together data to find some context).

[quote]If he keeps saying it and then I keep saying it to myself, will that not then in some way program my subconscious mind to make it so?  And in the same way, someone else will internalize their own trainer's methods and so those may well work too, at least as long as that viewer has internalized them.[/quote]

I've asked that of people who are trained in methods that really emphasize doing everything exactly by the book and never deviating.  Some people say when they deviate their results suck, so they learned how it was correct that one had to stay so rigidly in structure. Yet if they believed that deviation would cause that result, then that seems like a self fulfilling prophecy.  On the other hand maybe it's just so.

Back when Swann had that bright idea about using geographical coordinates as 'addressing' a psi target, I recall reading something that inferred that it took him a little practice before he started nailing them.  That always made me think that either it took his mind a bit to get the hang of some invisible process, or that it just took a little practice in that mental model for his mind to accept it better and lock on more reliably.

[quote]How much of this is really mechanics and how much is just plain old psychology?[/quote]

I don't know the answer to that.  It's a good door to open thinking for oneself as a developing viewer, I suspect, I am always wondering about this kind of thing myself!  A ref that comes to mind (since I mentioned him already) is from McMoneagle's RV Oasis interview series[2], where he was asked:

Q: How much of psi talent do you think is really a matter of psychology accepting/allowing psi?
and he said:
A: All of it.  That comes from "knowing" it's real, not believing it to be so.

[1] http://satwater.www9.50megs.com/RVMars.html
[2] http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/pjrv_interviews.cfm

Fire, somewhere around July 12, 2003

[quote]Being a newbie is a huge advantage in this area.[/quote]
I can't count the things I've succeeded at in my life because I was too stupid to know better.  Ignorance certainly has its downfalls but it has the great upside of not having the restrictions of existing beliefs, either!

[quote]I started off doing targets on the net without having any training and no idea how to go about it.[/quote]
Back in 1996 there was a website called The View From Here that had a couple viewers and the rest mostly interested public just playing around.  The funny thing is I recall them doing pretty well, regardless of not having had training.  And although nearly all the people I remember from there ended up getting formal training after that, I think it was probably good for them to see that psi was real for them because of them, first--rather than feeling totally dependent on methods.  Then the methods become a great tool ("how did we survive before microwaves and cordless drills?") instead of a you-can't-get-there-from-here-without-them concept.

[quote]For the life of me I still can't figure out why people insist on doing ideograms when all you need to do is concentrate just like in the rest of the session. But ideograms are so ingrained into people. It is one of those MUST DO's[/quote]
LOL.  I love ideograms but know plenty who don't use them. Unfortunately my ideograms don't always love me and I spend plenty of time in session where they are either useless to me or only confusing.  But I use them as "anchoring", not just going into the session but throughout the session whenever data isn't flowing.  Mainly I find that if I practice regularly, their value goes up considerably, and if I don't, they are much more difficult.  That goes for all parts of a session though, not just the Ids.

[quote]As far as I can tell ALL the methods are just simple tools to help promt the mind to do certain things.[/quote]
Seems like it.

[quote]And this is just what I needed.  The methods set up a path of questions that need to be answered.[/quote]
I have noticed that viewers appear to be capable of getting decent data with any method ever seen as well as with no method, their own method, etc.  This does suggest that it might be more about 'structure, attention and practice' than the specifics.  However, I do think that there may be certain ways, or certain sequences, that "in general" work better than other options.  This is the case in most other aspects of life and skills, so it would make sense it might be in psi as well.

[quote]Now most teachers tell us that some points along that path MUST be followed or we will stray off the path.[/quote]
I've heard that from a couple, but I don't recall Lyn or Paul suggesting that deviation was data-doom, only that the process had been developed for a reason and if you wanted its helpful effects, to stay in it as much as possible.

[quote]But if you want to be a techno geek you had probably read up on every manual you can find until you know it all inside and out then throw them all in the bin and teach yourself.[/quote]

If I knew then... and had it to do all over again, I'd teach myself first, and then much later, pursue methods.

[quote]Some people cling to rules and some find their own. Special people know the rules and how to break them.[/quote]
Yeah... I think in some cases though, it depends on what rules we're talking about (e.g., are we talking about ditching double-blind, which I'd never agree with if it were possible in context, or are we talking about writing it on the OTHER side of the paper, lol?!), and whether someone is so proficient that they can then violate them, or whether it's just an excuse for not bothering.  

Pro ice skaters, the best in the world, still have to do the bleepin' requirements, with points assigned, to ever make it into the finals that we end up seeing on TV.  We don't see skaters that become fabulous ice dancers but can't do all the figures to save their lives, because if they can't do those, they don't get to dance.  Maybe that's a belief system in THAT world.  Or maybe it suggests that the best impromptu and creative performance is usually based on a foundation of excellent technical skill.

Fire

waterway, somewhere around July 14, 2003

This is a great thread that is really digging around a rich vein.  [color=Red]It seems that RV works because it is part of our reality[/color]  After you look over all the "schools" and structures and protocols, you start to notice that they all have to crack your world view that says RV cannot exist, and replace it with a reality where RV works.  That is perhaps the first and most important step.  Like the Buddhist teacher asks you if you enter study with your cup full or empty, you have to empty your cup first before you proceed.   Some people are lucky to enter the fray more open to such things.  

[color=Blue]I think so many "schools" have their educational process and structures because 1) that is what science does, and they really want/need RV to be real science to get the research $, 2) It was originally being taught/utilized by the military and universities.  3) You want it accessible to the public, and much of the public is used to being educated by a structured curriculum and process.[/color]

But I think RV will work while standing in jello while wearing an aluminum foil hat if you believe that is how RV works.  [color=Red]Are the laws of physics immutable?[/color]  Uh... apparently not if you can see without eyes, and see the future and past.  Okay, maybe there is some "laws" we just haven't figured out yet that supercede our present understanding, but I think we will find that the "way RV works" and the way "reality works" has everything to do with how YOU know it works.  

-ww

energycritter, somewhere around July 14, 2003

Bottom line, as you mentioned, the empty state or No-mind is a good place to start, unless of course you can do the jello thing. The jello is the quintessential way of all things. Like yin and yang, the Supreme Ultimate is Jello....ha ha ha  :) :)

OK, seriously though, emptiness....then the Stew can come inside of you and add flavor to the moment.

waterway, have you read the book of five rings and Musashi's chapter on emptiness? Just curious.

Emptiness, not only a strategy of the warrior, but, a strategy of life.

BC the EC

waterway, somewhere around July 14, 2003

energycritter,

No, I have not read those books on emptiness, but they sound fascinating.  

It seems that the buddhist "no-mind" state is the same as getting around the conscious mind.  The subconscious, or Prime Conscious, as I like to call it, does not have a limited focus or a focus at all, though it does seem to have "intent".  

But back on topic, until a person is habituated to that state of No Mind, they will benefit from re-learning the universe as allowing RV in their conscious, world-view.  It seems that changing the mind changes how our universe works, or [color=Orange]AT LEAST[/color] our ability to perceive it working.  

Gecko, somewhere around July 14, 2003

Liz, first of all, i don' t know why, but a lot of people think that the reason we label aols is because we are saying they are wrong or are probably wrong.  That's not how I learned it either by Lyn or by Pru.  In fact, when a viewer is on a roll, the aols are often quite accurate.  However, Pru and Lyn do look at aols in slighly diff ways.  

If I understand correctly, Lyn feels that aols should be labeled at least in part so that you will not get too attached to them.  Unlike adjectives, aols tend to trap you into thinking you know what the target is.  But the whole goal is to not think too much and limit yourself that way.  So when you write that it is an aol, you are basically indicating that you got this word for some reason, maybe it was really symbolic or a carrier or of a adjectives or maybe it was really accurate, but your job is to just move on and not think too much about it.  Once you think you know what the target is, that can give your conscious mind the strength to start editing out anything it thinks is illogical.  But since the conscious mind is just guesssing, you don' t want it meddling.  So aol would mean more that "I don't know but I don't want to get too attached"  Hehe, it's like the difference between a lunch date and getting married!

Now for Pru, she takes a slightly different tact.  She doesn't like to use the word 'aol.'  She just has you write down the stuff as it comes.   I get the feelign she feels that writing 'aol' is like making a judgement on it.  ALthough that's not how I was trained when I learned it from Lyn, she does have a point that so many people seem to think that way no matter what anyone else says.  So anyway, Pru does try to address a similar prob in that she encourages everyone to look for low level data in the early stages of the session.  The purpose is kinda the same thing, ie you don't want to get too committed to a decision about the target really early on in the session.

However, Pru does not IMO say that any aol type word is probably gonna be symbolic.   Instead, I think she feels more that a lot of data that is not obviously accurate is probably symbolically accurate, so to be on the safe side, it's a good habit to practice breaking out some descriptors from the aol.  That part is basically the same advice as Lyn gives, ie to do a lot of description.  
-E

Fire, somewhere around July 15, 2003

I noticed when I made a shift from doing traditional RV practice to instead doing all of my targets precog, that for a little bit it seemed pointless, and then started working out.  Eventually it made no difference, and I began to finally realize that time is just... NOT.  

This is difficult to explain, but if I am actively doing precog psi, on a daily basis, it's like every day, so many times, I have a slightly different perspective on reality and events, my thoughts are different; as if it forces a shift in perspective in me.

My laptop finally works again, it was temporarily blitzed, and I'd been using a basics RV program Dr. May was kind enough to give me for that generation.  Well when my laptop locked up I went to my physical target pool which I'd just finished, and I reached in and got a target.  Worked fine for about three sessions.  Then, I felt myself 'feeling around'... and though I tried not to think about it, I had the clear sense I was.  

This resulted in a really good session that had nothing whatever to do with the target LOL!--er, okay, it wasn't a good session, but boy I sure thought it was until feedback. ::)

This happened the next two sessions.  I became utterly convinced that I was psychologically sabotaging myself--via psi no less!--by putting myself in an impossible psychic catch22--describe the target you choose, but then on choice, picking a target (via psi) that specifically did NOT match whatever I had already described.  Ye gods, the convoluted contradiction of that situation is impossible. ;-)

So I dropped precog.  And I found that when I was not doing it regularly, my perspective shifted back, and my 'fluency in nonlinear acceptance' (that is the only way I can put it) went down a lot.

I am gradually building a personal theory that regular practice isn't even so much about the learning theory of comparing feedback to session, but about building the *facile grace* of a viewer.  Viewing surely has a ton of skill and talent involved, but like a ballet dancer, if they don't do hours of stretching/workout every day, they lack the limber, facile grace which allows them to fully utilize the skill and talent.  

I am coming to believe that even a 9 minute session in a noisy place in a highly alert state, even if the session sucks, is actually helpful to do if it's a choice between that and not practicing for lack of time/environ/etc.  There is just so much to be said for the comfort of 'dropping into doing it' that is constantly practiced by doing sessions, no matter what their conditions.  I used to think if I couldn't do it right, then I wouldn't do it at all until I could.  Now I think that really did me a ton of harm and lost me a lot of development.

Anyway, so I would add to this thread that part of reprogramming ourselves is also about protocol, in this case, whether tasking is preemptive or retroactive.

By the way, I found the tasking that Calabrese called 'Wildcard'--doing a session and just targeting "whatever target gets assigned to this session" (with session blind to tasker doing assignment of course!)--worked just fine.  Didn't seem to make a bit of difference.  I asked Joe about this, if that was an acceptable protocol, and he said sure, you can do it that way.  I only did that for about a week but even during that week I could feel changes in my psychology, also related to the time issue.

Lucid, somewhere around July 16, 2003

There is a good article on Analytic Overlay at

[url]http://www.hrvg2.org/newsletter/2001-07/straycat.html[/url]

Note that the "Thesaural Image Deconstruction" exercise, which I think is brilliant, is covered on page 2.

Tunde, somewhere around July 17, 2003

it's a good habit to practice breaking out some descriptors from the aol.  That part is basically the same advice as Lyn gives, ie to do a lot of description.    
-E


Hi E,

I am not too sure thats a good idea though
especially if the AOL turns out to be a red herring.
Breaking that down into further descriptors could
easily ruin the session somewhat.

I still use AOL'S  in a typical TDS session but make
sure i dont go near them EVER once they are declared
if similar descriptors pop up thats fine but by then
all sorts of data would be coming through during and
after the Matrix stages to the point whereby i would
have probably forgotten about the AOLs anyway.

The one good thing along about formal Rv structure
is that it does provide a safety net and is really
a RVers best friend. I have a habit of getting
so much data in the first scan (TDS) and often
try to name the target straight away not always
but sometimes it just comes right out.
With Structure, you learn to let that go and just keep
to BASIC stuff and eventually you have something
concrete to play with.

I use to hate it when my trainer use to keep me
drilling for low level data in the early stages but now
i cant thank him enough for getting me to do that.

As for programing my mind , well i dont feel
any different than when i first started RVing
but the method i use now really has helped
without a shadow of a doubt.


Peace,
Tunde

wizopeva, somewhere around July 17, 2003

Tunde, I'm a bit confused because to the best of my knowledge, breaking out descriptors from a noun, whether you call the noun an aol or not, in fact IS basic rv structure for most if not all of the rv methods I know of.  When I was in Bananaslam, my mentor often encouraged me to put down more descriptors for my nouns.  

And IMO, it IS meant to be a safety net.  THe idea as I understand it is that even if your conscious mind comes up with an incorrect aol like say 'cat.'  And lets say the real target is in fact a skyscraper, well by using description, you enable your unconscious mind to pick out those descriptors that are most accurate anyway and thereby lead you back in the right direction.  

For instance, in that example, I may be thinking about my cat and I might think, " I think it is a cat because my cat is heavy, glassy-eyed, and sedentary.  He never moves and he cost me a lot of money!  Well in that example you could see how my unconscious choice of descriptors could lead back in the right direction.  SUre those things describe a cat but might they not also more or less describe a skyscraper in some ways?  

Whatever aol you come up with, there's probably always going to be some descriptors that will be accurate for the real target too.  The subconsious will often be more than happy to point those ways out to the conscious mind.  Add in the fact that the aol probably did not come to you at random and you can see that there will probably be even more and better commonalities than between a cat and a skyscraper ,which are examples I deliberately chose to be very divergent from eachother.

Also, in the case of an aol that IS totally correct, well then any descriptors will also be correct so there's no danger there other than being a bit repetitive.
-E

 



[quote]Hi E,

I am not too sure thats a good idea though
especially if the AOL turns out to be a red herring.
Breaking that down into further descriptors could
easily ruin the session somewhat.
......
The one good thing along about formal Rv structure
is that it does provide a safety net and is really
a RVers best friend.
I use to hate it when my trainer use to keep me
drilling for low level data in the early stages but now
i cant thank him enough for getting me to do that.

Peace,
Tunde
[/quote]

Tunde, somewhere around July 20, 2003

"Tunde, I'm a bit confused because to the best of my knowledge, breaking out descriptors from a noun, whether you call the noun an aol or not, in fact IS basic rv structure for most if not all of the rv methods "


Hi E-

I agree but iam refereing to anything i would literally class as an AOL itself in the session which is not often.
I think this goes back to old habbits and how often
people told me what to do with AOLS's

A hard habit to break :-) Its weird because breaking down nouns as you say is not what i tend to do
"deliberately" during my sessions. I was told to work
on this by my trainer/s but ALWAYS keep forgetting to
do so LOL .

What i found instead was as the sesssion
progressed the data would break out regardless
and i would just start to get a picture of what i FEEL
the target is. I use the whole session constantly going back and forth from scan one to the mind probes
- which for me has been the biggest tip ive been taught as i used to just  porgress through the session without
glacing over the data from earliear pages.

So i really dont "break down" specifics nouns as such
which in a way keeps me grounded and rely more on whats coming through than having to analyse to much
high level stuff and getting lost.

Things like trusting that my data is always going to be relative to the target and not giving a hoot what
iam doing or what pops up next often makes the session better for some reason.
A recent example was Viewing Neil Armstrong on the moon and i was picking up "Traveller" during the
Matrix stage and CM stage i probably should
probe these more often but as the session is getting
longer than the time ive alocated for myself
i begin shutting down my session as such. Ive often wondered when exactly is the best time to stop ones
session (but thats anoher question for another day:))

Once i started thinking what the hell is a traveller doing
and how it related to what i had already come up with
I literally froze and could not move on.
I feel at that point what you do next is cruicial
to the continued success or on target progression
of the rest of the session IMO.

One thing i like about the TDS method is Pru's insistence
to write everything no matter how small or big it is.
Hopefully i will eventually drop using the AOL  tag but
for now iam more interested in the consistency aspect
of RVing and iam beginning to see its not really one thing or another but a whole heap of stuff one has to
take into account. Observation, Duplication and Practice are the keys here.  ;)

weewizard, somewhere around July 21, 2003

Howdy all,

Somewhere in an Ingo lecture (or book, I'm not sure now), I recall Ingo mentioned that the CRV structure developed as it did because it was discovered through a lot of trial and error that the data was received in that more or less that order, from simple sensory input to emotional concepts to overall gestalt.

The structure is supposed to build from the minute details to larger and more complex concepts, and having the structure in part gives your conscious mind something to focus on while the subconscious is busy trying to translate "pure energy" into something understandable through the nervous system. From there we're supposed to let it bubble up into the session without allowing the conscious mind time to "interpret" the information. The structure also gives you someplace to put all the different types of information that you receive in a consistent format for review, which was probably one of the original requirements.

When you think of it as learning a new way to communicate, translating a form of energy into a reliable source of data points, it makes a bit more sense why structure is helpful. Several of the psychics in the CRV training I attended just about lost their hair (repeatedly pulling it out during class in exasperation) after their frustrated attempts to keep in the structure. They had a great deal more difficulty with targets because they had to "unlearn" their own "information retrieval" methods  that they had developed over time and relearn how data was coming in for the CRV session. Several of them mentioned during class how the information "didn't look anything like" the full color images and visuals they normally received. The folks in class who thought they were "psychic as a rock" tended to perform with more consistency maybe because they had nothing to "unlearn" and were just proceeding as instructed.

Possibly this discrepancy (with the psychics change in data information) is due to the fact that maybe our "collective unconscious" ??? is 'programmed' to send the RV data in a way that conforms to the protocol that's already been developed? I sure don't know, but I've always wondered if it could be the case that the very process of RV has "built the highway" so to speak for how RV related information is sent and received.

waterway, somewhere around July 22, 2003

weewizard,

I think you are on to something about how the developing process is building the highway.  Could be the highway is just being uncovered.... but I think it is more likely that we come to believe the process is working, (whatever the process is) and therefore it does work.  Its almost as if the laws of RV physics is conforming to the belief systems of the users....

wizopeva, somewhere around July 22, 2003

[quote]"What i found instead was as the sesssion
progressed the data would break out regardless
and i would just start to get a picture of what i FEEL
the target is. I use the whole session constantly going back and forth from scan one to the mind probes
- which for me has been the biggest tip ive been taught as i used to just  porgress through the session without
glacing over the data from earliear pages.[/quote]


Well my opinion is that if in the end it works just as well than fine, do it.  Tunde, you've been viewing a long time now compared at least to a newbie, so I am not surprised if you have developed some prefered methods along the way.  As long as you get the same data, then it's hard to argue.  


[quote]


Ive often wondered when exactly is the best time to stop ones
session (but thats anoher question for another day:))

[/quote]


I've heard it said that one clue is you keep getting the same data over and over again so it becomes a point of diminishing returns.  And of course, if your brain gets fried, you can always break and start again the next day.  

[quote]

Once i started thinking what the hell is a traveller doing
and how it related to what i had already come up with
I literally froze and could not move on.
[/quote]


Hehe, maybe your subconscious threw a tantrum at your conscious mind for being silly, LOL!   ;-)


[quote]

I feel at that point what you do next is cruicial
to the continued success or on target progression
of the rest of the session IMO.

[/quote]

One thing I like to do a lot is use one of Pru's favorite questions which was, "Most significant aspect not yet discussed."  That's a good one to go at the end and also can help dig you out of a rut because once you ask that question, then you are expecting something somewhat new to come along and will be less likely to try to make it fit with other stuff you already got.  

[quote]

One thing i like about the TDS method is Pru's insistence
to write everything no matter how small or big it is.
Hopefully i will eventually drop using the AOL  tag but
for now iam more interested in the consistency aspect
of RVing and iam beginning to see its not really one thing or another but a whole heap of stuff one has to
take into account. Observation, Duplication and Practice are the keys here.  ;)

[/quote]

Yes, I think the writing all stuff down thing is a good one and it saves you a sore butt later cuz then you won't have to go back after feedback and kick yourself for not having writen something that was really good.  

As far as AOL, I still like to use it in my TDS sessions, even though it's not standard TDS protocol.  THe reason I like it is cuz sometimes I get something and I just don't feel it really is exactly in the target but is just a carrier of some kind of info.  So I can write 'aol' there and that tells me that I should for sure dig for what it's trying to saying and also to be wary of taking it too literally.  Other times, I get something that I really feel is there and so I don't write 'aol.'  It makes me feel better in the session to make that distinction and also helps me remember and choose more wisely what to put in the summary.  But that's just my personal style.  I don't know if it would work for others.  
-E

end of messages

[END Topic 10] How much do rv methods program our minds? TKR Remote Viewing Forum July 2003