Topic [180] Friends and lovers TKR Remote Viewing Forum September 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.

waterway, somewhere around September 23, 2003

I want to know if anyone can tell me that viewers, taskers and monitors who are close, who share a strong interpersonal relationship, are more successful in their RV efforts.  I read an article years ago that suggested that "new lovers" did better on zener card tests than strangers and "long term couples".  

Does this seem true from your experience, and if so.... why?

admin, somewhere around September 23, 2003

Howdy waterway,

This topic wasn't nearly as scandalous as the title made me think it might be.   ;-)

I have been told about research which indicated that scores in parapsychology seemed slightly better for persons with relationships: parent/child, spouses, etc.  

I mentioned on another thread, a very experienced cabalist friend of mine once told me, on hearing about that research, that persons highly attracted to each other but who had not yet mated did extremely well in his experience with tandem psi functioning.

However I don't think the research was done specifically on RV, nor was his work.  So it may or may not apply to the tasker/viewer/monitor situation, I don't know.

I have noticed over time more tendency for viewers in groups with interpersonal relationships to get the same data (even when it's wrong), as one of many examples, and this is part of why I talk about 'validation' being a form of 'informal feedback' that has to be watched carefully.  This is not a big deal on feedback targets but on targets without that, especially the 'government secrets' and 'alien agenda' types of taskings, it can sure cause some lurking suspicions. ;-)  

I believe intent is "exponential, not additional".  In magickal workings, there is a huge difference between 8 people in a ritual and one or even 3 -- I mean huge.  It's like there's some critical mass you hit and WHOMPF, the energy's so fast and powerful you are wondering if you are going to be forced out of body or throw up on yourself before it's your turn to sing or lead LOL.

Psi likely comes from 'every possible' source of info, and it's possible that if one has a real rapport with personX, one is more likely to get info, or get it clearly, from personX, than perhaps from other sources.  Then again, this is assuming there is any such thing as different 'sources' of info at all, and that's not just our linear perception of reality.

Whether this same dynamic 'improves' RV, would have to be seen.  I think it likely does at least somewhat, and having a 'team' for RV that had good relations would be very beneficial to the overall process.  

... On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see a viewer be dependent on it, and as a viewer I sure wouldn't want to be.  That's sort of like learning to ski only on perfect powder areas or skydive only under ideal, easy conditions.  Someday one may have to be able to deal with the real world without the 'gentle padding' of a perfect situation, and I think I'd rather have some rough&ready sort who was 'generally good' at stuff than a fragile flower who seemed much better--but only with the grey room and 9 other steps in place and only people they knew and liked involved, LOL.

The hardest part about having any objective testing of this in the layman's field is that when people work together who have those relationships, they also tend to talk to each other after and about the sessions, which can affect the process, and depending on the situation things aren't always fully double-blind, etc.--there are other factors that tend to be ignored which also may affect results, when things are done outside the carefully controlled parameters in the lab.

I'm interested to hear other peoples' experience with this and thoughts on it -- in any kind of psi work, even, not just RV.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around September 24, 2003

Thanks PJ,

Criminy, you have me asking more questions than I am getting answers to.  But... I will stay on topic....

I am interested in [color=Red]IF[/color] this phenomenon exists, then maybe we can shed some light on WHY, and find out more about the mechanism of RV.  I am not interested in another crutch....

I've been working with my 6th grade daughter who is learning the "Scientific Method" and in our discussion here, I am interested in finding out how these variables relate to each other.... IF indeed close relationships increase RV success.

I think I saw something a few months ago from a researcher in Edinburgh on this topic.... I will look into it.  -)oes anyone else know what I am talking about?

My model for understanding [color=LimeGreen]How this works[/color] is that good ol' Web of Indra concept.  But I cannot figure out if I believe that we all share a common web, or if each of us has our own personal web, and we get together only conceptually.... ie you talk about your apple and I talk about my apple and the vast majority of the relationships to those apples are mirrored... but not the same.

I am not sure of much of this, its a work in progress, but I thought I'd float it out here for critiquing and examination.

Again, do RVers find that "closeness" with fellow researchers helps increase RV successes?

trypper, somewhere around September 24, 2003

>Again, do RVers find that "closeness" with fellow researchers >helps increase RV successes?

IMHO *trust* helps increase any psi success.   One is less hesitant to open up to a trusted companion.  "Closeness" breeds trust.

trypper

waterway, somewhere around September 25, 2003

Okay then, approaching this from another angle....

If we had targets that were significant to the viewer or analyst, such as important events from their lives... would the RV success rate go up?

While agree that [color=LimeGreen]trust[/color] does help.... I think other interspersonal factors influence it more.... or at least that has been suggested by some researchers....

People in new relationships, who have only known each other and been dating a few months, scored significantly higher than couples that had been together for decades.  If this is true.... it suggests that some energy... some strengthened INTENT in their fledgling relationship, increases the success of zener card tests.

And yes, I am saying that the significance of the zener card success, is what increases the success rate.  I might even go so far as to say that.... trust is actually stronger in new love than in old, since you are willing to invest MORE trust then.  Maybe I am confusing trust with need... which would explain a lot of my relationships.... [size=1][color=Teal]ouch.[/color][/size]

Correct me folks, I need some understanding here....  

trypper, somewhere around September 25, 2003

[quote]> If we had targets that were significant to the viewer or >analyst, such as important events from their lives... would the >RV success rate go up? [/quote]
In my humble opinion it would.  Most of my hits had a personal element.

[quote]> While agree that trust does help.... I think other interspersonal >factors influence it more.... or at least that has been suggested >by some researchers.... Ê
> Ê
> People in new relationships, who have only known each other >and been dating a few months, scored significantly higher than >couples that had been together for decades. ÊIf this is true.... it >suggests that some energy... some strengthened INTENT in >their fledgling relationship, increases the success of zener card >tests.
Ê
> And yes, I am saying that the significance of the zener card >success, is what increases the success rate. ÊI might even go so >far as to say that.... trust is actually stronger in new love than >in old, since you are willing to invest MORE trust then. ÊMaybe I >am confusing trust with need... which would explain a lot of my >relationships.... ouch. [/quote]
That doesn't make sense to me at all.

In new relationships, the individuals are focusing strongly on each other in an attempt to *win/find/earn* that trust.  ÊJust like you try a little harder in a brand new job.  That doesn't mean you won't be as or more competent later on.  The cards may say more about relationships than it does about psi.
Ê
trypper

[size=0]Modified by PJ who had a hard time figuring out what was quote vs. comment so tried to 'quote it'.[/size]

waterway, somewhere around September 25, 2003

Trypper,

When you said:
[color=Orange]"That doesn't make sense to me at all." [/color] regarding my earlier post where I said:

[size=1][color=Blue]"And yes, I am saying that the significance of the zener card success, is what increases the success rate.  I might even go so far as to say that.... trust is actually stronger in new love than in old, since you are willing to invest MORE trust then.  Maybe I am confusing trust with need... which would explain a lot of my relationships.... ouch. "
[/color][/size]

I will try to clarify in case it may shed some light on this discussion.  I think the first sentence was really the only part that mattered there... my later conjecturing on new love and relationships was a vain attempt to be witty....

But as for the point of that paragraph, I think the reason that new loves do better together on zener card tests (if they do... I still can't find that web-article) is because the event of doing well means more to them than failure.  Doing well on the zener card tests means more to a new couple than an old couple because it more strongly strengthens the new relationship.   I think the energy behind the PSI success is the relationship and NOT PSI success.  The fact of success is SIGNIFICANT to the new couple in a way that an older relationship would not be.  

I hope that clarifies some.

trypper, somewhere around September 25, 2003

[quote]I will try to clarify in case it may shed some light on this discussion. ÊI think the first sentence was really the only part that mattered there... my later conjecturing on new love and relationships was a vain attempt to be witty.... [/quote]
Aha!  Got it... witty. :-)

[quote] But as for the point of that paragraph, I think the reason that new loves do better together on zener card tests (if they do... I still can't find that web-article) is because the event of doing well means more to them than failure. ÊDoing well on the zener card tests means more to a new couple than an old couple because it more strongly strengthens the new relationship. Ê I think the energy behind the PSI success is the relationship and NOT PSI success. ÊThe fact of success is SIGNIFICANT to the new couple in a way that an older relationship would not be.[/quote]
I think I understand what you mean.  

trypper
       
[size=0]Modified by PJ, as somehow the entire outer page of the bbs got copied into the box of this message, just removing that... sorry trypper don't mean to 'get in' your posts, just trying to help.[/size]

waterway, somewhere around September 26, 2003

This is starting to bug me.  I have a memory of a web-article about a researcher in England somewhere doing studies of people in close relationships.  I want to say it is Dr. Paul Stevens.  It was some topical piece, not a scientific journal.  I did find this though, but it isn't what I remember.  It would have been from at least 6 months ago.  

Its from a webpage dedicated to PSI info.  

[size=1][color=Blue]The research is not yet complete, but Dr Stevens, who conducted the experiments at Edinburgh University's world-renowned parapsychology unit, theorized that they might have found a significant pattern.  He hopes that the experiments will not only demonstrate psychic ability but will show the underlying mechanisms responsible for it.

The study paired people with extremely well developed relationships.  Each pair was split up and designated as a “sender” or “receiver.”  Senders were shown a series of randomly selected video clips and told to “send” the information to the partner who sat in a soundproofed room nearly 100 feet away.  Receivers listened to “white noise” believed to put them into an ultra-receptive state.  They were then asked to say what came into their heads while their body was measured for any changes.
[/color][/size]

Can anyone else point to similar research?

admin, somewhere around September 26, 2003

I believe quite a bit of Ganzfeld research-- the protocol for your description quoted is Ganzfeld with a sender-- is similar to this, though not all use senders.  Look under Honorton, Charles, he did quite a bit of that type of research.

One thing is, the reason outbounders/senders were eventually dropped from research here is because they weren't necessary.  Really good viewers had good data whether someone was 'sending' to them or not.

So maybe this is instance #1,872 where things in the lab and things in the layman's world differ, mostly because the differing caliber of viewer measured in the two different areas results in two different situations or experiences.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around September 30, 2003

Okay, but what about tasked events that involve people or places that are "Important" to the viewer.  -)oes this  help, or just complicate things?

admin, somewhere around October 1, 2003

Well allegedly, anything that has 'import' to the viewer makes a positive difference.  Whether the viewer has to know this before the session, or at feedback, or not at all, is another aspect of the question I'm not sure about!

PJ

waterway, somewhere around October 10, 2003

[color=Blue][size=1]Well allegedly, anything that has 'import' to the viewer makes a positive difference.  Whether the viewer has to know this before the session, or at feedback, or not at all, is another aspect of the question I'm not sure about!

PJ [/size][/color]

Crap.  Now you have brought that whole time issue into it.   Could I increase my reception of the RV info by making the event MORE IMPORTANT after I do the RV session?   Has anyone tried behavior modification with viewers?  That would make the info important!

[color=Green]Viewer[/color]:    Uh.. I see... flames...
[color=Red]Tasker[/color]    Very good, here's an M&M.
[color=Green]Viewer[/color]   <crunch...crunch> ..there are people.... running...
[color=Red]Tasker[/color]   ...hmm.... here's an M&M...
[color=Green]Viewer[/color]   <gulp...crunch..crunch> I see a tower.... explosion... a bursting balloon...OH, THE HUMANITY!!
[color=Red]Tasker[/color]   ...wow... here, take the whole bag....
[color=Green]Viewer[/color]   <crunch...crunch...crunch>

admin, somewhere around October 10, 2003

LOL!

Hey, that example was out of protocol.  ;-)

Yes, they have actually.  The "thoughtful consideration" that comes AFTER a session, in a perfect world, contains not only an attempt to strongly focus on and grant personal import to what's important--as if what you do to affect yourself after the session can also affect what you did IN the session (let's just ignore the time loop brain melting linearity issues shall we).

Now and then I do some 'intuitive writing' in my lab book and one time when I was asking about what I could do better to learn better my IS (intuitive self) told me that when I got feedback, I should study it carefully, and then--seeing it, knowing it--I should try and 'make contact with' the target THEN, afterwards, on purpose.  I had never considered trying to do contact 'after' the session.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around October 12, 2003

Hey, I like that idea of really putting a lot of work into the Feedback part of the session.  I have been doing that from day one, since I have always believed that how you relate to the feedback, and the feedback experience, directly effects what you get in the RV session.  The more relationships found during feedback, the more the RV session has to grab ahold of.

admin, somewhere around October 14, 2003

I think it was McMoneagle who was once saying that different people learn at different rates in RV, and sometimes how one goes about teaching themselves can affect the speed of their development. He really emphasizes "thoughtful consideration" of the feedback and session.  

I go through my session, with feedback, and try to understand WHY I said each thing I did, or sketched what I did.  If it was misinterpreted, overinterpreted, badly communicated, AOL, whatever, I want to *understand myself.*  

It's not really even about whether the data is accurate or not.  I know that sounds like heresy but I've said that for a long time and nobody has burned me at the stake yet lol.  Sometimes I have the hilarious tendency to get data wrong or just 'generic' that is accurate on FB.  By that I mean sometimes our choice of words hinders or aids us, and we learn from that.  Not long ago I said in a session, "A vertical plane."  Hot damn, the target was literally, a plane, vertically. But that isn't what I meant.  I meant plane as in "flat surface." LOL.

What's important to me about a session is that when it's over and I'm looking at feedback, I learn something about myself.  I learn how something new 'feels' inside me, or I realize something about how my mind was moving that caused one thing to become another.  Close consideration of feedback is critical for the process.

Even in mundane terms I learn a lot.  Sometimes I want to sketch something, either literal or symbolic, and I can't because it's a weird shape and I just flat out cannot sketch it because I suck at sketching!  Well, after that session I will hunt down that shape until I learn to sketch it.  I won't be frustrated for lack of sketching skill twice for that shape, and of course there are only so many shapes in the world so it applies to more than just that target.  

Or like, I find it difficult to express in words OR sketch when I sense a shape, and a thing, but the thing is not solid mass, and the shape is really irregular and even armopheous, and then I find on feedback it is a column of smoke.  Well, now I know how 'smoke' feels.  I'm not disappointed that my session did not say 'column of smoke'.  I'm thrilled that I was able to flesh out a feeling and now on feedback I can attach that feeling to something and understand.

One thing I find is that right after a session I am often highly subjective.  I go through emotional cycles with sessions, where for awhile I am delighted with everything (even seemingly poor results) and then for awhile I am frustrated with everything (to the point where I will space out direct, specific on-target data -- just forget, miss, overlook it (!) -- to arrange this feeling).  (This is just part of the fear of psi stuff, emotional cycles both in a session and in sessions as an overall pursuit.)  That's the cool thing about using a lab book (or a notebook, as some people prefer), because I am constantly going back through my sessions and often seeing stuff that I hadn't noticed before.  I think often inspiration to do sessions or thoughtfully review previous sessions comes just because my lab book is always there, kind of like having an instrument sitting right next to you much more inspires you to play it and come up with new stuff.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around October 14, 2003

I heard on the news that they have taught monkeys to use mechanical arms by training neurons.  You are doing the same thing  here, you are making connections between the RV experience and "conscious sensations".  I would expect that to be beneficial in a lot of ways.  It keeps RV from getting boring, but also gets RV to be a habit and reflex.  I know learning occurs better when the thing we are learning is important, it has a function.  

RVing with friends and lovers (see how I bring it back on topic... pretty cool..) has more of a function, is more important, than RVing with random people.

admin, somewhere around October 14, 2003

Hah!  That was quite a stretch for topic Mr. E.  Who RV's with random people?  But never mind that.  The body shaping thread in offtopic is turning into the friends and lovers thread so maybe we should just trade lol!  PJ

wizopeva, somewhere around October 14, 2003

Of course, feedback issues don't quite explain why it seems that ops sessions in general seem to yield better sessions.  Sometimes the viewer never sees the feedback even if it becomes known.   That can happen in cases of client privacy.   I have heard HRVG refer to this as an issue of the 'need' of the target.  THe question is how and where does that 'need' manifest itself in the process.  Is it the need/desire/interest of the viewer or the analyst or the project in general or some other thing?  
-E

waterway, somewhere around October 15, 2003

PJ asked:  [color=Orange]"Who RV's with random people?" [/color]

Okay, "random" is not the right word.  I got hung up on that when I wrote the post... I was in the middle of a visual basic class waiting for the instructor to hand out the next project.... and wasn't really focusing on my post... sorry.  The project turned out quite well though... ::)  What I meant in my post was that RV with a significant person in the process may work better than RV with a person we know only casually.

Eva then says: [color=Red]"THe question is how and where does that 'need' manifest itself in the process." [/color]

That is a great question cuz I think the answer tells us a lot... uh... but I am not sure of what that answer might be.  We had talked in this or another thread about RV data being pulled in, or RV success being "caused" by some other, "subconscious" mediated reason, and not necessarily by the successful RV session reason.  Whooo.... I am not in class now and this barely makes sense to me...

We are used to thinking that the process is like this.
1. We want RV data
2. We try to get RV data (though this part is often debated.)
3. We get some RV data
4. We look at the feedback
5. We announce we are successful
6. We party.

And we assume that wanting it, experiencing the feedback of the tasked event, feeling successful, are what "caused" the RV info to be received.  But what if those things are merely co-related, but don't actually cause us to get the RV info.  What if the actual mechanism that is directly causing the RV data to be recieved is some subconscious "need", and I can be fulfilling that need by successfully RVing without ever consciously knowing I fullfilled a need.  [size=1][color=Teal]... and how the hell would you ever construct an experiment to substanciate this...?[/color][/size] :-/

Tigr50, somewhere around October 15, 2003

Hi there:
I've been away for a little while, but have returned to find this interesting discussion about "need" and "feedback," which are favorite topics of mine.  Personally, I think both are essential to the success of RV--with the proviso that this is not a matter of "ego" need, and "ego" inflation.  For example, I think our ancestors "needed" to find the herds of animals that would provide food, and there was someone in the tribe who could RV this successfully--if the tribe was to survive.  The success is of benefit to many, not a single individual.  

Or...Finding Saddam Hussein would be of benefit to many (or solve a few large political problems) and the tribe of man would be enhanced not just the individual viewer.  I see the real problem as a cooperative one.  The whole tribe of man does not "believe" in the power of viewing and the technoids and the viewers don't share information.  Working with those who trust each other and do the best they can with combined info would probably be the ideal.  That's why friends do well together viewing, I think, and lovers, and relatives.  But it does not solve the big problem;  it does not help viewing become an acccepted way of obtaining information--yet.  And testing is not the answer; one just gets hung-up in the success of the test.  Talk about ego games.  Anyway, my two cents.
Deb

waterway, somewhere around October 15, 2003

OK Deb,  I hear ya.  And I like what I am hearing.

so... lets get back to this [color=LimeGreen]Web of Indra[/color] metaphor I am so enamored with... lets say that we as individuals, steered by our ego, just plop ourselves down at some cluster of perceptions on that Web.  From there, our Ego calls itself "Deb, in the present, right here" and goes about its life.  But in fact... you are just a small manifestation of the whole web.  And so am I, but each of us is part of that fabric, but the fabric itself has a dynamic, a function... a "mechanic" or process that is happening, and sometimes bubbles up through us in the form of RV.  But the stuff isn't bubbling up due to our ego mechanics, or maybe not even from our "subconscious" needs or intent, but instead from the intent or need or process of the whole web itself.......[color=Teal][size=1]and how the hell are we gonna develop an experiment to verify this?.....[/size][/color]

Tigr50, somewhere around October 15, 2003

Howdy:

(Yes, well there's that old remark--if we could test to prove it was so, we wouldn't need faith).

Anyway...web of Indra....hmmm.  Well, I sort of follow you.  "All things can be known" is my philosophy.  But I also believe one's capacity to know these things and to show and speak them is limited by other forces, and perhaps, Karma. (I used to say this to my psychic clients:  "If I wasn't supposed to tell you, I wouldn't see it."  They understood this perfectly.)

Anyway, I think in Jungian terms too, which is more of my background.  The Collective Unconscious is the larger mind, the personal unconscious is the telephone line to the individual conscious mind.  I also  think in Huna terms with RV as well:  one must ask the "Lower Self" to ask the "Higher Self" if you can please have the information you need, and the "Lower Self" delivers the message, if you have done the right things and asked in an unambiguous way.  There is no direct line to the Higher Self (no passing "go" collect $200).  For me, it does work.  And if I'm not supposed to know--I don't get the message.  Somebody else can do it.

Now some might say this is just an excuse, but interferring with a larger plan is a big "no-no," --no matter what your motives.  That's why I find that some criminals are "fair game," and others are somehow "protected," hard as that is to believe.  And then there is your own protection to consider.  Messing with some RV may also endanger your own existence and your planned rendevous with destiny.

In case you think I'm on the fringe, I actually work for a company that develops psi testing based on true random number generation. Very very high tech stuff and better results than PEAR.   Compared to that kind of testing, RV is a treat!  You can just get what you get and relax with it.  I'm often even happy to be wrong and not get a "hit."  Hits about devstation and tragedy are not really very nice.
:)

waterway, somewhere around October 15, 2003

Deb, your job sounds fascinating and important.

I appreciate your insights on this.  Can I ask you, how does the mind differentiate between what it is supposed to know, and what it is NOT supposed to know?  Are there karmic filters or something like that?  Please educate me.

I think your perspective is a good one, so educate me some more, please.

Tigr50, somewhere around October 16, 2003

Hi waterway:
I won't presume to know the answer to your question, I just have encountered such "filters" (good word, by the way) along with my experiences.  I also think, especially when approaching an RV or vision of the future (which I believe are very different animals), that preliminary steps are necessary for certain outcomes (sounds simplistic, I know).  If someone asks me for the probablility of an outcome, and it is very fuzzy or non-existent, then I must tell them that they have not completed steps A,B,C first, etc.  If you think about it, most people only wish or fantasize about the future, they do not use real visualization tequniques (as in Huna) to achieve their goals--or follow-through.  Clear Goals + Mana (energy) can bring real outcomes (although they might be slightly different than one asked for.  Now, I'm not saying those outcomes are always good ones.  (The "be careful what you wish for" applies here).  But back to RV.  I think that this is most effective for real-time observation at least for me.

When I go to Iraq to view,  it is almost always at night or early evening.  I have a time-zone problem.  I can't read the signs or understand what anyone is saying.  It's like watching a foreign TV show.  That's just me.  I know some people have overcome this problem, and I say great!

Filters:  I think there are other forces in charge, higher forces, and you just can't mess around as if there were no consequences. Thats's it in a nutshell.

It's early, and I may sound a bit incoherent.
Cheers
Deb

waterway, somewhere around October 16, 2003

Tigr50, thanks for sharing your insights.  I am not clear in my mind about the time issue.  You mentioned that you require steps to an outcome and that a vision of the future is difficult until those steps are taken.  I have seen mentioned here and otherplaces the idea that the future becomes more predictable as the range of options for change are lessened by present action.  That suggests many possible futures, and I don't know if I buy that.  I think there is only one thing that will happen, and the future cannot change.  Sure its counter-intuitive... and I could be wrong.

I would agree that karma limits our choices, and I kind of think that as karmic issues are resolved, those filters are eliminated and you open up to more information.    I think friends and lovers allow you to be more open and to resovle karmic issues.  They give you a safe place to remove the burdens of fear, and that allows you to be more open to RV info.  On the other hand... friends and lovers can also inspire you into habits that limit your growth... or can if you are not careful.  Relationships in general take a lot of skill.....

waterway, somewhere around October 16, 2003

Thanks for the info, AnotherDreamer.

There isn't a lot of science on this whole topic anyway, not lately anyway.   I've heard lots of anecdotal 'evidence' like yours, and it contributed to my original post here.

I think I have painted this picture too simply, so I don't know if my original question does more than open a can of worms.  I admit that if I RV or have visions of a complete stranger... they suddenly become very significant to me.  -)oes their importance to me, or the event's importance, have to be in the past, present or future?  Uh... I think the answer is "Yes".

Again, I don't think the "importance" comes from my ego's plans, but from something else, as we noted a few posts back.  Is it karma?  If so....[color=Red]I have a great experiment we could develop to test this![/color] Hehehee.... I've been wanting to say that for days.

Just give folks a psychological inventory (I don't know which one....) to determine what "issues" they have... and that gives you a clue to their karma issues.  The go out and get a dozen or so tasked events that are clearly related to that issue, and throw in a dozed or so more task events that clearly are NOT related to that issue (as defined by their pychology eval), the have them RV them all, and look at which events had higher evaluated accuracies?  

In Ed May's tests on pre-congnition of adverse stimuli.... or whatever the title is... I forget.... did he show any correlation between the viewers level of "shock" at the image, and the frequency/force of the pre-action they displayed?  Were they more likely to know a horrible picture was coming than they were to know a mildly annoying picture was coming?  If so, there could be many reasons for that, but one might be that the more disturbing picture (to them) has a more glaring "karmic issue" attached, and therefore is more likely to evoke a pre-sponse.  -)id they eventually change the test to sound instead of visual events?

Thanks for any feedback.

admin, somewhere around October 16, 2003

Dr. May told me the picture method of precog bio readings isn't very workable and that's why they now use a sudden sound or shock.  The problem is that psychology is unique and that is what determines how people react. A picture of "the devil" can freak some people out and bring humor or nothing to another. A picture of violence or bloody death can horrify some people and make others feel distant.  There is also the issue that seeing certain pictures might affect someone's state of mind so that how they reacted to certain pictures after that is changed, e.g., you see a few gory pictures and you get inured.  So now they use sound or shock, which is pretty much pure physiology.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around October 17, 2003

PJ pointed out:
[color=Green][size=1] So now they use sound or shock, which is pretty much pure physiology.
[/size][/color]

That's what I thought.  I can see their reasoning for experimental reasons.  -)o they have the data around for the earlier, visual stimuli experiments?   I may be barking up an empty tree here.

wizopeva, somewhere around October 20, 2003

That reminds me of another tv show I was watching recently.  The subject was 'consciousness' and the upshot was that a lot of research suggests that all thought starts at the subconscious level before it translates into what we consciously think.  It's actually something that I rarely think about clearly.  

Where do our thoughts come from?  If all are from the sub, and we know so very little about what happens there, then could free will be a complete illusion?  -)oes the worker ant think it's is free to gather food as it pleases and not realize the matrix behind it that in fact governs all it's thoughts in the first place.? Are our thoughts our own or are they merely a manefestation of the matrix of life and humanity?   IF so, how much can we as individuals influence the matrix and how much does it influence us?   Or how much for instance would the group energy of the rv community influence an individual viewer?    

(Speaking of which, I just saw a bit of news about ant colonies and how some of them have complex farming procedures and have even developed antibiotics to keep other pests off their crop.  And they've been doing this for far far longer than has the human race.  But that's a whole 'nother subject and my mind is wandering all over today it seems!)
-E




[quote]OK Deb,  I hear ya.  And I like what I am hearing.

so... lets get back to this [color=LimeGreen]Web of Indra[/color] metaphor I am so enamored with... lets say that we as individuals, steered by our ego, just plop ourselves down at some cluster of perceptions on that Web.  From there, our Ego calls itself "Deb, in the present, right here" and goes about its life.  But in fact... you are just a small manifestation of the whole web.  And so am I, but each of us is part of that fabric, but the fabric itself has a dynamic, a function... a "mechanic" or process that is happening, and sometimes bubbles up through us in the form of RV.  But the stuff isn't bubbling up due to our ego mechanics, or maybe not even from our "subconscious" needs or intent, but instead from the intent or need or process of the whole web itself.......[color=Teal][size=1]and how the hell are we gonna develop an experiment to verify this?.....[/size][/color][/quote]

admin, somewhere around October 20, 2003

There's an Ant thread on the offtopic board with stuff about ants--they are actually pretty amazing.  As a matter of fact, some suggest that if aliens were genuinely to visit, and fairly consider the most advanced species on the planet, termites or a couple types of ants would probably be on the list before humans.  We may be more 'autonomous' individually but as a society and species, if there was a scorecard we'd be behind.  And you don't see the ants nearly wiping out earth. ;-)

I hold that freewill and predestination are both true but it's impossible to explain in logical terms, as it's not linear.  

I'm reading this book right now from John Gatto about the history of education in America.  Goody, another detailed, researched, referenced book one cannot consider mere opinion or deny, which yet again reveals the machinations of a few rich dudes + govt in conspiracy to control.  Ya know, it's hard not to be paranoid when there are legitimate conspiracies to consider sometimes, LOL.  

Anyway, it has really made me stop and consider how much of my behavior and tendencies are just the result of my environ; maybe I'm just an ameoba in some respects.  There's so much stuff in there I never considered. Some of it I wonder where he's going with it or why the history lesson and then he ties it into the reason he's explaining and you go, good lord, now I see, I had no idea.  Really is making me want to be more self-aware though, about what and how I think.

PJ

Gene_Smith, somewhere around October 21, 2003

[quote]
I hold that freewill and predestination are both true but it's impossible to explain in logical terms, as it's not linear.
[/quote]

I have a collection of books by Calvin and many of his followers, Luther and his, some Dallas Theological Graduates, and a variety of other oft times overly serious theologians who would agree with you completely; but all seem to have taken 500 pages to do so.  See you can be brief!!

Gene

waterway, somewhere around October 31, 2003

That Freddy Nietzche had a lot to say on free will and determinism.  He seemed to think they were both concepts built on false assumptions, so he said both were wrong, sorta.

Speaking of friends and lovers, what do you folks think of the idea of "soul mates" and all that?

wizopeva, somewhere around October 31, 2003

On soulmates, this is a bit off topic but I'll tackle it.  I personally believe that all souls seek balance.  But each person, being imperfect as we are, has areas of weakness and issues that have not been dealt with fully.  That's part of life.  

The feminine seeks the masculine and vice versa.  The strong seeks the weak and vice versa.  You could continue with just about any trait.  So when you meet someone that fills a lot of your own personality holes, then you tend to feel a really strong attraction to that person.  

I think it mostly comes down to a type of energetic mathematics.  If you have too many or too deep weak spots and imbalances in yourself, then it tends to lead to desperation and clinginess to get those holes filled and that reflects in the relationship with others.  THe relationship will reflect the extreme imbalance and so will probably also be imbalanced.  

If you meet someone who is the coolest person in the world, you may not feel attracted physically unless that person fills some of your weaknesses.  If you are too much the same, then no attraction, even if it is fun to hang out together.  If someone fills a deep weakness of yours, then you might find it difficult to leave, even if the person has bad traits.  And I think the more that person's psyche fills in issues with your psyche, the more that person will feel like a soul mate.  Cuz in a way that will be true.
-E

Fire, somewhere around October 31, 2003

This reminds me of some of the research done on the frequencies in the human voice.  

This is the modern day cheap 'lie detector' technology many big HR departments use.

They found that the most popular singers, for example Barbra Streisand, had a really wide range of frequency in their voices.

They found that people seemed to be attracted to people who had frequencies where the other person lacked them, and vice versa.

So maybe the singers were popular partly because they were "filling in" people on some energetic level.

This suggested indirectly that at least in this regard, people simply strive to feel complete.

And that we're attracted to people based on what we feel completes us... like you're talking about Eva.

I wonder if the concept of 'loving yourself'--positive self esteem--comes into play here.  Whether a person who has this is physiologically more inclined to have a fuller spectrum, or not be so extreme at missing points.  Whether being 'too' needy will draw people of the other extreme rather than people capable of healthy love (or quickly put them at that extreme just from interaction with that energy).  Making the 'to be loved first you have to love yourself' be sort of true.

I often wonder WHY I get the data I do in RV.  I wonder if something like this draw/balance of energy is involved.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around November 3, 2003

One of the considerations in the original questions of this thread had to do with some sort of "special" connection between friends and lovers, so I thought the notion of "soul-mates" would shine some light on that.  My understanding of what a "soul-mate" is, is that the two people share some unique bond that other folks cannot, as though fate or the balance of the universe depended on their relationship.  

Eva and PJ, you make some good points, which I agree with.  And as for WHY we get the data we do, I think EVERYTHING we get, in RV or relationships or fender-benders or jobs, we get cuz we "need" them to complete some aspect of our development in need of balance.  Sorta like karma....

waterway, somewhere around December 22, 2003

From Sheldrake and Smart's paper presented at the 2003 Society for Psychical Research Conference:

[color=green][size=1]"With 40 participants, we compared the success rates with familiar and unfamiliar callers and found a striking difference. With familiar callers, 56% of the guesses were correct and, with unfamiliar callers, only 21% of the guesses were correct, not significantly different from chance. This difference between the responses was highly significant. We also investigated the effects of distance between the callers and participants. With overseas callers, at least 1,000 miles away, the success rate was 65% . With callers in Britain, the success rate was lower (35%). In most cases, the overseas callers were people to whom the participants were closely bonded. For the successful identification of callers, emotional closeness seemed to be more important than proximity."[/size][/color]

They were looking at that common experience of people getting email or phone calls and knowing who its from before actually experiencing the communication.  

waterway, somewhere around December 22, 2003

What I am trying to say is... I am getting more and more convinced that the mechanics of RV and other PSI experiences hinges on the "Importance" of the PSI event.  And not necessarily on the significance or importance of the information, though I think personal "importance" is like a beacon for events during RV.  "Importance" is like a hook that the ego-mind can latch onto to recognize the information.

But the reason relationships help PSI function is because the  actual EVENT of RV improves the relationship and is important to the RVer.   Relationships are important, so things that help the relationship are important.   So it is not the content of the PSI event that is essential, but instead, it is the "significance" of the actual event itself and what that event provides the RVer that matters.  So if a PSI experiment brings people together and the feedback exists and brings them closer... there is no need for the experiment to successful, for the importance is there WITHOUT a PSI event.  That is also why negative PSI exists, because the EVENT of getting it WRONG is "important".    That is why some researchers seem to always have good results, and others do not.  

I think we may be looking too narrowly at the process.  I think the actual "cause" of the event is the whole experimental process that starts  from the RVer's personal needs through the feedback process and into the RVers personal life AFTER the experiment is ended, because the reward for the RVer could occur hours, days, weeks or years after the successful RV event.  

I could go on, but you get the idea.  

What is wrong with this idea?  Give me some feedback, please.

admin, somewhere around December 24, 2003

First, a note to Eva: Steiner's "Intuitive thinking as a spiritual path" delves into thinking-about-thinking and it's quite interesting.  He does a brief overview of the various philosophies on the topic as well.

Waterway, I don't think there is anything wrong with your model, but I would say that if you are going to hold it, you will find that it has to apply to the universe, all of reality, not just RV.

In other words, if you think hard enough about things happening because on some level, there is a reason we have chosen to have them happen and/or happen the way they did, you just find yourself at that room of 'creating your reality' again.

I suspect that a remote viewing session is no different than anything else we experience in this regard. We psychically knew the probabilities and outcome and our assumed free will decision chose the experience appropriate for us, for our beliefs and desires etc.  A great deal of this, at least in a Sethian model, would come down to belief systems.  Which would tie right into what you were saying in another thread about McMoneagle's comments: that if a person truly KNEW they were a good viewer (the fundamental psychological belief systems held that), they were.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around December 26, 2003

PJ said:

[size=1][color=blue]"...I would say that if you are going to hold it, you will find that it has to apply to the universe, all of reality, not just RV." [/color][/size]

That's true.  I understand that my idea isn't new or revolutionary, but it its a tough pill to swallow.  We have kind of talked around it here on various threads.  

I was also interested in trying to more accuratlely define the variables in  RV experiments and RV as a skill.  It also opens a whole can of worms in its implications for stuff outside of RV.  It is difficult to work with since its really like the eye trying to see itself.... or asking if mind can comprehend mind?   Maybe I am trying to understand things that are the basic building blocks of "understanding", and am doomed to failure.  

For instance, if we are guaging "importance" or "significance" as variables in an experiment, how the heck would be provide for a control?  But I think that such things could be manipulated ethically and logically if done with care.

If we say that "importance" of the event "causes" RV, then adding importance to  the process will help.  Ceremony, emotion, relationships, alignment of the stars... all these things can contribute, though are not necessary.  

admin, somewhere around December 28, 2003

[quote]I was also interested in trying to more accuratlely define the variables in  RV experiments and RV as a skill.[/quote]
Well either of those is a giant measure so just one, to start with.  ;-)

[quote]its really like the eye trying to see itself.... or asking if mind can comprehend mind? Maybe I am trying to understand things that are the basic building blocks of "understanding", and am doomed to failure.[/quote]
Again I recommend Steiner's writings on this, or at least some of them; not because I'm a fan of his (I'm not really though I respect his work), but because I think he makes an important point; there are assumptions that nearly every philosopher has had about what is human, mind, consciousness, and most of them seem to assume certain restrictions, or separations, or biological limits, that anybody experienced in psi might care to question.  I can't say it here, it is very difficult to discuss as our terminology is lacking, he does it better.  But I do believe there is a level of 'awareness' which can be cultivated which is NOT actual thinking as we know it.

[quote]For instance, if we are guaging "importance" or "significance" as variables in an experiment, how the heck would be provide for a control?  But I think that such things could be manipulated ethically and logically if done with care.[/quote]
I don't know that this can really be done except in wide generalities. For example they used to do psi tests using photos and they'd try to affect the subjects so as to get a response, using sex, violence, absurdity, etc. but in the end, you cannot predict the response of any person, and people adapt quickly anyway.  You cannot tell what will be and will continue to be shocking, or pleasing, and so I think you probably cannot tell what will be important or significant, either.

Now if we did these trials using a .38 to punish failure, we might be able to force some significance into the trial, but I don't think the human use laws allow that. ;-)

[quote]If we say that "importance" of the event "causes" RV,[/quote]
Whoa, back up.

Define RV as you use it above.  -)o you mean to say 'psi' instead?  Or do you mean to say 'psi accuracy'?  Because the term RV is odd there, RV is a process.  Are you referring to "which/what data" we get, instead?  Or are you referring to the overall result, which is difficult since 'success' is an iffy thing at best, subjective.  

[quote]Ceremony, emotion, relationships, alignment of the stars... all these things can contribute, though are not necessary. [/quote]
Probably yes to both.  But in the end, perhaps the real question is just intent vs. accident.  In other words our sense of focus may be heightened by a variety of situations, but that is sort of accidental, non-deliberate, or ameoba-like stimulus, response, and by chance here we are getting good data.  But perhaps simply working on developing a sense of focus that does not require ANY other criteria except the experience of the session itself, will make all the other details irrelevant.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around December 29, 2003

I definitely need to read Steiner, hopefully he has made some sense of this, as the whole subject feels like quicksand to me... the more I discern, the more mired I find myself.  Very uncomfortable.  I love puzzles, but not necessarily a puzzle that fights back as hard as this one.  I appreciate all the feedback and questioning, it really helps.

I have been thinking about how this could be tested and worked into an experiment.  I think it could be done ethically, sans the .38.   I think you CAN tell what is significant for a person, but the problem is, once it is dealt with... it is no longer important.  In other words, it changes DURING the experiment, which is a problem but not an insurmountable one... I think.  

This whole issue is one that philosophers have worked with for eons, and I certainly do not have the brains to resolve it or even explain it effectively, but I do believe it is extremely important to work with to get at the mechanics of RV or any PSI event.  

To clarify my meaning earlier about Importance causing RV, I do mean "PSI" more than the process of RV.  I do mean that the successful identification of the tasked object, which is a PSI event in doing so, is manifest in reality due to the importance of the event.  

My brain hurts.  

What Steiner book do you recommend?

admin, somewhere around December 29, 2003

[quote]Steiner, hopefully he has made some sense of this, as the whole subject feels like quicksand to me...[/quote]
Well it IS semantical quicksand for sure.  

It's like on this other thread me and Gene talking about 'what a person believes' vs. 'fundamental belief systems' which are not the same thing in my world but since our language makes no difference between such things, for all purposes semantically, there isn't one, unless someone 'stretches' the word-meanings to make it so.  

It is difficult to work the brain around things we don't have words for, or that linear words seem to restrict. "Thinking about thinking" is... tough.

[quote]I have been thinking about how this could be tested and worked into an experiment.  I think it could be done ethically, sans the .38.   I think you CAN tell what is significant for a person, but the problem is, once it is dealt with... it is no longer important.  In other words, it changes DURING the experiment, which is a problem but not an insurmountable one... I think.[/quote]
Well it is a problem, but a larger question is, why test?  Every person is likely to have different significances, and different degrees, and those degrees or things can literally change sometimes from minute to minute.  Now if we were talking about a fairly consistent thing from person to person, e.g., you give 'em a psyche profile and find that ThingX is significant to them, so you work that into the way they are trained or practice RV, in the hopes this improves their results.  But given it is such a "morpheous" thing even for one person let alone everyone, what is the value to trying so hard to nail it down?

And, what if significance is mitigated by other issues?  Such as fundamental belief systems.  Even arbitrary things, e.g., say a person depending on their core beliefs and other issues can handle getting one mind blowing session every couple of days, but it would be too much for them to get more, so on some level that mitigated other issues like their sense of significance for the sessions, which had they been spaced differently time-wise, when the person had more time to integrate, based on significance alone would have had a better result on the second one.  How can you possibly separate every human factor out to end up with any answer worth having in this?

[quote]This whole issue is one that philosophers have worked with for eons, and I certainly do not have the brains to resolve it or even explain it effectively, but I do believe it is extremely important to work with to get at the mechanics of RV or any PSI event.[/quote]
I think we live and breathe and function at a primary level through psi.  I think everything we are wondering about "how to make psi happen" is backward, and instead we need to be looking at, "If we assume psi happens every moment, what are we doing to suppress it and/or awareness of it?"

[quote]My brain hurts.  What Steiner book do you recommend?[/quote]
I don't know.  I'm trying to remember the one I was reading that talked about this, as he has several including one entirely on the thinking-about-thinking topic.  I think it was 'intuitive thinking as a spiritual path'.

PJ

George, somewhere around December 29, 2003

I think we live and breathe and function at a primary level through psi. I think everything we are wondering about "how to make psi happen" is backward, and instead we need to be looking at, "If we assume psi happens every moment, what are we doing to suppress it and/or awareness of it?"

Very interesting idea, "psi happens every moment".  I think that our conscious minds are the main thing blocking it.  I've done what I think is very wonderful research on instantaneous psi feedback.  The computer program that I written gives almost continuous feedback on a finger movement psi.  What this research shows is that psi happens a lot spontaneously.   Yet, for me it’s not all the time, except maybe at a very low level.  It clearly shows varying levels of psi.  The psi seems to happen as a “first time effect” a lot, also when I’m distracted or other times when I least expect it.  It’s become quite clear that the conscious mind awareness is a big part of what is blocking it.
    The computer program collects a lot of data quickly with no possible bias from the conscious mind.  This makes computer analysis fairly easy and saving the data a snap.   I have maybe 100 examples of psi stopping suddenly when I become aware via the feedback that I’m producing psi.  There is clearly a conscious mind process that stops it.

energycritter, somewhere around December 30, 2003

[quote].....PJ wrote......I think we live and breathe and function at a primary level through psi. I think everything we are wondering about "how to make psi happen" is backward, and instead we need to be looking at, "If we assume psi happens every moment, what are we doing to suppress it and/or awareness of it?"

.....George wrote.....Very interesting idea, "psi happens every moment".  I think that our conscious minds are the main thing blocking it.  I've done what I think is very wonderful research on [color=Red]instantaneous[/color]psi feedback.


There is clearly a conscious mind process that stops it.

[/quote]


It seems like part of that conscious hindrance is coming from the idea that we are not usually expecting the psi data to be available instantly. We (humans) tend to give it time or we take time while preparing to receive data that has already passed through us the instant that we intended on receiving the data.

I have considered this before, but, I found a little bit of evidence of this type of thing when I was trying to communicate with my standard poodle a few weeks ago. She was looking at me and seemed to be asking for something from me. When I asked her if she was asking this that or the other thing it appeared to me that her answers or responses were instant and my tendency was to ponder my question long into the time that had passed her having already answered it instantly when I was partially through with the question.

It got me to thinking that we (humans) seem to NOT be paying attention soon enough when we want data. Humans joke about talking to dogs and as they joke after asking the dog a question, it seems that the dog just sits and says, “hey man, you ask me a question, then you do not pay attention and you spend all this time wondering if I answered and you missed the answer that was instantly render right when the question was asked.”

Humans can be notorious for missing the point or answer to questions and whatnot by simply not paying “instant” attention. “Instant” attention would seem to be of some benefit. It seems that we spend too much time aligning ourselves for some sort of delayed and slow moving manifestation that comes to us a few or many moments after the intending of receiving the requested or desired and intended data. It seems that we think that we need to go through a set of motions to make the communion with knowledge possible as if we all disbelieve that it is possible. Oh boy, there is that belief thing again.

I think we humans have been conditioned to not notice the answers instantly because in our daily reality we seem to have to wait for everything.

I asked my dog a couple more questions and each time I did, it seemed as if she was instant with her response ( ears perked up, eyes widen, snort or sniffle or wag or whatever form the answer may take) and I found that it would be very easy for humans to stand in human stupidity while the answer was already rendered and we just missed it through our idea of delayed response that we encounter when we ask another humans a question.

Now, granted, it is polite to pause and ponder any question in order to give ample attention and respect to the person asking the question, but, what if we give too much time to reality when we ask reality to give us data during an RV moment?

Maybe we should be expecting the data instantly and not spending so much time preparing to receive what has already passed through our sub-consciousness, so to speak, the moment we intended on obtaining the data.

Humans have time to ponder when asked a question from another human, but, when we ask a psi type of question through intentions, we may need to be paying “instant” attention or the data will go right by and then we do need to spend time looking for it after the fact.

When we talk to humans, it is obvious that we have time to ponder and think, unless the human says, hurry, I need to know right now. But, with psi, it would seem that psi would have no reason to wait or ponder before providing us with the intentionally requested data.

Why would psi need time to delay the data? The collective would not have reason to wait, so, why do we wait or want to take time or plan on spending X amount of time getting ready to receive data that has already passed by instantly upon intending on knowing.

Instant knowingness would seem to be the way of the psi stuff.

I think we humans need to be instant in season and out of season.

I guess since dogs have no ability to chat with us and indicate to us that they are thinking while we wait for an answer, then it would seem the same for psi data in general. No ability for extended dialog, so why should we expect the data to be delayed and not actually instantly available to us upon intending to receive it?

I dunno, just healthy conjecture…..

ec

George, somewhere around December 30, 2003

I agree generally, psi can be or is instantaneous.  Yet, it also seems that for most of us it will take time to get the conscious mind out of the way so that the answer can get through.  There is something in the bible that says "before you ask I will answer."  I suspect that statement was referring to what you are talking about.

energycritter, somewhere around December 30, 2003

Yea, I hear ya, I wonder why our conscious mind is so dominant over our mind in general? I know that sounds like the stupid question that it is, but, why is the conscious mind so affective at blocking psi stuff if psi stuff could be of such importance to humanity in general?

I wonder what kind of thoughts, not just music or meditations, but, instant thoughts or structures thereof, would allow the conscious mind to be occupied and the sub or un-conscious mind to rise to the surface, so to speak, while we are simply existing without any effort put into obtaining the un or sub-con. mind?

Do we fear so deeply and unconsciously that we do not allow the sub or un-con. mind to have any role in daily mundania?

Or, do we non-believe so deeply that we then have to struggle to get anything from our un and/or sub-con. mind?

Humans seem to be so conditioned to be conscious all the time...LOL....I guess it works for mundania.

I guess the idea of mind altering drugs is so apparantly appealing because of the conditioning that we all seem to try and un-condition whenever we can and in whatever way we can.

Non-belief way down inside of us must be keeping us all stuck with the verbal and consciously comunicative stuff we now know as knowledge exchanged and gained, etc.

Overall, data in general seems to be considered something that we must struggle with to obtain, or, at least our conditioning makes us think that it is hard to obtain. I dunno.....just being silly, I guess, well, consciously being silly and sub or un-con. being healthily conjective.

how many spelling erors can you count....LOL

:)

I better stop before everything I say is completly redundent and boring.....

ec

Anotherdreamer, somewhere around December 30, 2003

[quote]Yea, I hear ya, I wonder why our conscious mind is so dominant over our mind in general? ec[/quote]

From   Robert Monroe’s book…Ultimate Journey…lists Animal Sub-Self as “All human communication, inward and out, is filtered and distorted by the predator and physical survival drives, which, I think of as ASS—Animal Sub-Self—brought about by existence in the Earth Life System.”
But he also wrote that the left-brain=human mind modified by the Earth Life System.
Right Brain=Expression of the Core Self the timeless, non-physical   part of us, untouched and unaffected by the Earth Life System.
So perhaps it's really a matter of which side we favor???? ???

Anotherdreamer, somewhere around December 30, 2003

[quote]

I think we live and breathe and function at a primary level through psi.  I think everything we are wondering about "how to make psi happen" is backward, and instead we need to be looking at, "If we assume psi happens every moment, what are we doing to suppress it and/or awareness of it?"
PJ
[/quote]
What if we need a valve to contain the flow of some of this information? If we are relentlessly living in the realms of psi or doing RV functions 24-7 when would we have desire to procreate or the capacity to function in the physical world that being human demands?  I think we are designed perfectly already.  We might question the why and how but I believe it all has a purpose.

It goes back to the core belief as you mentioned before. I think if we always remember that we can access it instantly whenever we need or desire it then we should find peace with that.  I think some people  would call it “blind faith”.

Anotherdreamer, somewhere around December 31, 2003

[quote]
Speaking of friends and lovers, what do you folks think of the idea of "soul mates" and all that?
[/quote]

[quote] I personally believe that all souls seek balance.  But each person, being imperfect as we are, has areas of weakness and issues that have not been dealt with fully.  That's part of life.  

I think it mostly comes down to a type of energetic mathematics.  If you have too many or too deep weak spots and imbalances in yourself, then it tends to lead to desperation and clinginess to get those holes filled and that reflects in the relationship with others.  THe relationship will reflect the extreme imbalance and so will probably also be imbalanced.  

If someone fills a deep weakness of yours, then you might find it difficult to leave, even if the person has bad traits.  And I think the more that person's psyche fills in issues with your psyche, the more that person will feel like a soul mate.  Cuz in a way that will be true.
-E
[/quote]

I agree in many ways with you Eva. Yet, I think there could be another layer involved, some kind of prior arrangement.  I know I always seem to talk about my own life.  It’s really all I “KNOW”. LOL When I saw my first husband for the very first time…even before he said a single word, I knew there was an arranged meeting somewhere in the past or future. He said he knew it too.  Some people call that “love at first sight”. It wasn’t love as I think of it now. I’m not sure it could even be considered lust. But, I knew it was important somehow. We married quickly and had two children as soon as humanly possible and then our relationship died out. When it was over I knew that we had completed whatever it was that we agreed to do.  


I wonder what you people think of soul groups?  Anyone read  James Redfield’s The Celestine Prophecy?  

kboyken, somewhere around January 1, 2004

Imho, soulmates and soul groups may exist, but I wonder whether the constellation of ideas, hopes, and longings that swirl about these concepts would have any connection with the actual things themselves.  I remember reading somewhere that encountering a true soulmate is not the blissful, joyous experience we expect, that a true soulmate would push all your buttons, bring up all your issues, just by their presence.  That makes some sense to me.  A person in your soul group could just as easily be your worst enemy as your best friend.

Personally, I've always felt like I am basically alone here in this lifetime, not here to hook up with anyone from my Disk, as Bob Monroe would put it.  That's one thing that walloped me at my last program at TMI, a huge sense of loss and grief at my core.

Karl

waterway, somewhere around January 2, 2004

Karl commented:

[color=Blue]"....a huge sense of loss and grief at my core." [/color]

..... that is kinda sad Karl, but you sound like you have adjusted to that.  On the other hand, its liberating too.  Buddhists believe we keep coming back here cuz we have items to work on, and those "soul mates" are there to illuminate those items.  Maybe if you don't have a person or person's to latch onto, then EVERYONE is an option.  You certainly seem to be a blessing to the folks here.  

kboyken, somewhere around January 3, 2004

Thanks, waterway.  I'm in the process of adjusting.  One thing I've learned is that emotions, even very intense, powerful, core emotions, don't have to be overwhelming.  I don't have to allow this feeling to consume me or control me.  You're right, it is liberating, in that I can see now how this sense of loss has played out in my life to this point, and I now can free myself from the habitual patterns it's generated (I hope).

Karl

Anotherdreamer, somewhere around January 3, 2004

Karl,
I felt the same way Waterway did when I first read your post. I've been thinking about it for a couple of days. I don’t have any idea what the “disk” is.  But at least there is hope that you know in some place and some time you are not alone. It seems to me a fluctuation of perceptions on this topic could be good for the human soul.  I am alone.  I am not alone.  It’s through this wavering that we find our balance.  As a person I have been physically alone and at other times mentally alone but my spirit or soul or whatever it’s called now days….it’s always been connected. I couldn’t imagine how remote viewing could even be possible if this connection was not there.

kboyken, somewhere around January 4, 2004

Thanks, Anotherdreamer.  About the disk--that's how Monroe perceived the group soul, or whatever you'd call it, as a big disk with different, related personalities distributed around it.

Karl

energycritter, somewhere around January 5, 2004

[quote]I'm in the process of adjusting.  I don't have to allow this feeling to consume me or control me.  You're right, it is liberating, in that I can see now how this sense of loss has played out in my life to this point, and I now can free myself from the habitual patterns it's generated (I hope).

Karl
[/quote]

I hope so too Karl....

remote hug for you buddy.....O

ec

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around January 5, 2004

Lot's of interesting thinking going on in this thread...

[quote]Yea, I hear ya, I wonder why our conscious mind is so dominant over our mind in general? ec [/quote]

My first reaction to your question is that this is how we humans have trained ourselves...or 'overtrained ourselves'.   Back in the cave man days, they had to think for themselves...rely on instincts for survival, just as animals  in the wild still do (our domesticated animals of today are symbolic of our current selves in that much natural instinct has been bred out of them and they are more 'dependent' on others as a result)  We have come to rely on almost totally on left brain thinking and therefore, continue to strengthen these particular thinking muscles on an ongoing basis. I'm sure if we reversed the process by concentrating on right brain thinking, we would see a vast improvement in the data we receive as well as the accuracy of it.

[quote]anotherdreamer said      
It goes back to the core belief as you mentioned before. I think if we always remember that we can access it instantly whenever we need or desire it then we should find peace with that[/quote] I totally agree. The downfall is that we don't have enough faith in what we access or faith that we can access upon will. Once these hurdles have been overcome, then we're home free.

About the soulmates:
[quote]on 10/31/03 at 23:21:36, Eva wrote:I personally believe that all souls seek balance.  But each person, being imperfect as we are, has areas of weakness and issues that have not been dealt with fully.  That's part of life.  

I think it mostly comes down to a type of energetic mathematics.  If you have too many or too deep weak spots and imbalances in yourself, then it tends to lead to desperation and clinginess to get those holes filled and that reflects in the relationship with others.  THe relationship will reflect the extreme imbalance and so will probably also be imbalanced.  

If someone fills a deep weakness of yours, then you might find it difficult to leave, even if the person has bad traits.  And I think the more that person's psyche fills in issues with your psyche, the more that person will feel like a soul mate.  Cuz in a way that will be true.
-E
     

Karl said: I remember reading somewhere that encountering a true soulmate is not the blissful, joyous experience we expect, that a true soulmate would push all your buttons, bring up all your issues, just by their presence.  That makes some sense to me.  A person in your soul group could just as easily be your worst enemy as your best friend.

Personally, I've always felt like I am basically alone here in this lifetime, not here to hook up with anyone       
     
on 01/03/04 at 06:36:47, Karl also wrote:I'm in the process of adjusting.  I don't have to allow this feeling to consume me or control me.  You're right, it is liberating, in that I can see now how this sense of loss has played out in my life to this point, and I now can free myself from the habitual patterns it's generated (I hope). [/quote]

I remember when I realized that I 'was alone' in this world...just about knocked me over  :'(  then I got over it and took it as the gift it was...but it took a while to see this as 'a gift'...I needed lots of probing into this one but here is one of the few things I found ~

Not speaking on a spiritual level...yet, I believe we are ALL alone in everyday life...this trip is ours alone to walk as we will, however that may be. If you believe in souls, then it isn't a stretch to believe that we are all, at all times, in a process of evolving...both personally as well as humankind. We all have our weakness and our strengths. Our stronger aspects helps those with the weaker aspects of themselves...as Eva said...balance..we in turn are helped by those who are stronger in our weaker areas. This is man helping perpetuate man...this is the broad spectrum of love of mankind. No man is meant to be an island unto themselves. BUT, in the end, the walk is ours, the soul searching of self is ours, the personal rewards of deep digging and painful progress are ours and for those with 'faith' and believing in spirit guides,  they are being helped by their guides.

However, along the way, we meet others...some for a short time, some for a longer time and others for a lifetime. If we pay attention, we will see that all those who come into our orbit are there FOR US..and we for them. Some will teach us, some will guide us, some will humble us, some will share pain with us, some will love us  and while these elements are being shared, not all will go smoothly, not all will be painless, not all will seem loving at the time. We in turn do the same for them and on and on it goes...man helping and loving man.

What is liberating, as Karl is finding out, is that in knowing we are alone, we have freedoms, most likely not previously considered...and with the freedoms come responsibility and accountability of self to self. Not one of us should rely on another to live our lives for us...living our life is our personal job...nor should we try to live another's life- that's their job. What we do, as individuals,  is provide the balance that makes all this possible for the other. And then..... then....


every once in a while, along comes that person that just stands out as being more special than anyone else so far...this is the person that makes our hearts sings, that lights our fires, that makes us wake up and smell the roses...they also can make us hurt like no one else before, they sure do know how to and do 'push our buttons' (which is usually just what we need at the time), they push us to our limits, they grow us, they encourage us, they love us, they help us.  Is this a soul mate??  I have no idea...I don't even know if I believe in soul mates per se..but I do know this much...when one of these people comes into your life, cherish them. I've yet not to be better off for having such a person in my life...regardless of the length of time.

I have been lucky enough to have several of really important people in my life...those who have really made a difference, those who have really cared, most are gone now, a few have remained and a few have been added. For those who have gone on and not necessarily in death,or for those relationships that have changed from one thing into another,  there remains a connection unlike all others...it's really, really special and it's ongoing...it feels eternal.

...and yes, I agree that these 'special' people can also seem to be/or are our worst enemy ( seemingly )...it all depends on what it is that our souls are needing when they enter our lives...and it all depends on what our souls need that determines how long they stay with us...keeping in mind that it's always a 2 way process... as they leave us, we also are leaving them... as we leave them, they are leaving us...it just takes a while for this awareness to sink in...usually in hindsight.

Darn,  I've just been interrupted 3 times  in the pasts 5 minutes and I've lost my train of thought.... (don't all cheer and clap your hands at once   :P )

so, looks like I'm finished....LOL

taking my soapbox down and exiting stage left......

kboyken, somewhere around January 6, 2004

Thanks for that post, pdPJ!  A lot to mull over in there.

Karl

admin, somewhere around January 6, 2004

[quote]I've always felt like I am basically alone here in this lifetime, not here to hook up with anyone from my Disk, as Bob Monroe would put it.  That's one thing that walloped me at my last program at TMI, a huge sense of loss and grief at my core.[/quote]
That's a personal thing and difficult for most people to share.  The TMI programs do seem to dig something out of your soul each time that moves you don't they.

When I was a child, I felt I would be... a loner all my life.  I mean I consciously thought of this, from the time I was about 9 years old.  I never expected to marry or have family and I strongly suspected I would end up doing something that made me travel a lot... alone.  When I became a teen and read books like The Hobbit, I identified with characters like Gandalf that just show up and are always traveling alone.  That general theme always wound through me.  

In Jan 1995 I was 29 and I had several psi experiences that related to the direction of the world at that point, and although I hadn't thought about the 'alone-ness' issue consciously in years (despite having taken a 10 year vow of celibacy after 3 broken engagements, LOL--but I didn't think about it), it suddenly hit me at that point, that I wasn't going to get to live a 'normal' life this time.  With family, marriage, child, etc.  

I felt such a sense of grief it was shaking.  I didn't know why I would feel that, as I had always known it.  But there was apparently some part of me grieving deeply.  I realized that on some level I had never been aware of before, I really WANTED to have that in my reality.  Wanted it more deeply than I ever imagined.

And my reality changed radically.  I mean RADICALLY.  Four months later I was married and 20 months later I had a baby girl.  Both of which, especially the latter, were so unexpected it all seemed pretty surreal for awhile frankly.

I think I changed my reality, my future.  In many ways, not for the better; as if I traded some things profoundly important to me for other things profoundly important to me, and as if the person I was able to be in the first mode was not the same in the second. I've spent 9 years resenting what I lost in myself, as if literally in some respects I let go of 10 years of personal evolution and became someone I remembered being long prior but had evolved out of--or thought I had anyway.  But I don't regret my girl.  She popped my life out into emotional 3D in a way I could never have imagined.

I have sensed people I think I am connected to, on a soul level, here.  It is no big deal in my case.  One of them knows and agrees, the other doesn't know.  The one that knows, every 4 years or so we call each other, talk for hours, and that does it for another few years.  I sense there are others we're not aware of.  I don't have all the romantic notions about this sort of thing most people seem to.

I admit though, it's a damnably seductive idea, that somewhere out there is a person whose 'sonar of the soul' I call it hears the echoes of them inside you and vice versa.  Some soul mate; some sense of destiny.  It's profoundly appealing, as a "soul connection" is something I think I must be lonely for.  But honestly, I have a hard time connecting to the idea as more than pleasing fiction.

PJ

kboyken, somewhere around January 7, 2004

[quote]
That's a personal thing and difficult for most people to share.  The TMI programs do seem to dig something out of your soul each time that moves you don't they.[/quote]

That's the truth!  And it always seems to be something I never would have guessed.

[quote]I think I changed my reality, my future.  In many ways, not for the better; as if I traded some things profoundly important to me for other things profoundly important to me, and as if the person I was able to be in the first mode was not the same in the second. I've spent 9 years resenting what I lost in myself, as if literally in some respects I let go of 10 years of personal evolution and became someone I remembered being long prior but had evolved out of--or thought I had anyway.  But I don't regret my girl.  She popped my life out into emotional 3D in a way I could never have imagined.[/quote]

I can relate to that, but now I can see that marrying and raising a family have been very healing for me, have forced me to deal with a number of aspects of myself that I don't think I could have in any other context.

[quote]I have sensed people I think I am connected to, on a soul level, here.  It is no big deal in my case.  One of them knows and agrees, the other doesn't know.  The one that knows, every 4 years or so we call each other, talk for hours, and that does it for another few years.  I sense there are others we're not aware of.  I don't have all the romantic notions about this sort of thing most people seem to.[/quote]

I've met people I've felt close to immediately, and also people toward whom I've felt an immediate aversion, which I feel probably also means some kind of connection.  But it's always in a two-ships-passing kind of situation.

One thing about TMI programs, I have the feeling that the atmosphere there is, or at least can be, something like a soul group.  Especially the last program I attended.  It was damn hard to leave.  One person described an experience she had, reliving her entry into this life, in which she was sliding down a tube from "up there" and suddenly realized she was about to be incarnated.  She put on the brakes and refused to budge.  Some helper had to talk her into letting go and sliding all the way down.  That's how I felt, when Timeline was over.

[quote]I admit though, it's a damnably seductive idea, that somewhere out there is a person whose 'sonar of the soul' I call it hears the echoes of them inside you and vice versa.  Some soul mate; some sense of destiny.  It's profoundly appealing, as a "soul connection" is something I think I must be lonely for.  But honestly, I have a hard time connecting to the idea as more than pleasing fiction.[/quote]

I think it's an interesting idea and probably has a lot of validity to it, but you have to be careful to hold it at arm's length and keep an open, fluid mind about it, or you risk projecting the thing onto people and locking into a static idea about what your relationship with them is or should be, rather than dealing with people and relationships as they are.

Karl

wizopeva, somewhere around January 9, 2004

I've come to suspect that the soulmate thing, ie that sudden love at first sight thing, comes about when you meet someone that fills one or more big voids within yourself.  At an instinctive level, you know that other person makes you feel more 'whole' and you long for it immediately.  But there are many potential probs.  

One is that you may not fill any holes for that person and so that person will not share your feelings.  Another may be that although that person my fulfill some need in you, he/she may in other ways be very bad for you, perhaps a mean person or whatever, and so there will be a constant push/pull love/hate relationship that you have difficulty breaking away from yet cannot be happy in.   Another prob is that if your need is very great, your hole very deep and wide, then you may become so addicted to that person that it becomes a situation of stifling them and not wanting to be away from them even for a moment, which leads to stagnation and a lack of learning on your part, plus perhaps a feeling from the other person of needing more space.  You spend most of your life energy trying to be near them yet at some level still sort of mad at them because you still can't quite reach that feeling of completion as long as the other person is still a separate person from you.  

And so often, the most emotional of relationships are the most volatile, unstable, and unhealthy.  I think it's only when you have learned to sort of fill some of your own voids, grow, and become a relatively stable person yourself that you can then hope to achieve a stable relationship with another that has also reached the same level.  You will still probably be attracted to those that meet some of your weak areas, but if you are more balanced, you will be more able to learn from them and also give them the space they need without undue trauma to yourself.  Weak spots are one thing but gaping holes are another.  And if you are balanced, then you will be much better able to realize when someone is bad for you and much more able to pull away and move on.  

I think some people spend a lot of their life looking for someone to make them feel intense emotion and fill those holes.  They want that thrill of completion.  In many ways, perhaps they aren't sure what exactly they want but they know they are missing something and keep looking for it, never really satisfied cuz they can never quite seem to find it.  But really the only way to find that ultimate fulfillment is within yourself.  It will never come from another 'perfect' person or a better job or more money.  

Lasting happiness cannot come from the outside, although if you are ready, I think sometimes you can find someone that can at least help to show you the way.  That I think is the best kind of soulmate, but when the term is used, it is often used to refer to a rather unhealthy and intense addiction to another person that is like a drug, complete with intense highs and lows.  But for someone who has never experienced the highs (ie the feeling of completion and balance), then for them perhaps almost any amount of lows are worth it.  Again, it's like a drug addiction.   It feels good some times, but in the end, you won't get the ultimate balance as long as you look to someone else to give it to you.  
-E  


I admit though, it's a damnably seductive idea, that somewhere out there is a person whose 'sonar of the soul' I call it hears the echoes of them inside you and vice versa.  Some soul mate; some sense of destiny.  It's profoundly appealing, as a "soul connection" is something I think I must be lonely for.  But honestly, I have a hard time connecting to the idea as more than pleasing fiction.

waterway, somewhere around January 10, 2004

Eva penned:
[color=Blue][size=1]"I admit though, it's a damnably seductive idea, that somewhere out there is a person whose 'sonar of the soul' I call it hears the echoes of them inside you and vice versa.  Some soul mate; some sense of destiny. "[/size][/color]

It sure makes things easier.  If you can find someone to fill all your needs, it means you don't have to deal with that stuff yourself.  Trouble is, you just make your weaknesses more pronounced, and now connected to NEW issues the person brings with them.  Not very healthy, and usually leads to more trouble down the way.  

On the othere hand, such things are SO prevelent and so common, its kind of part of growing up, so its been romanticized and celebrated and commercialized.  

wizopeva, somewhere around January 10, 2004

Hey, that wasn' t me that penned that, I think it was PJ.  I think part of the seduction is that it IS so romanticized and publicized.  Plus I think it is always attractive to think there is a short cut to happiness.  People like to believe they can just find this one thing, money, the perfect spouse, or whatever, and then just by that, they will suddenly be happy.  Too bad it doesn't work like that, LOL!  
-E

waterway, somewhere around January 11, 2004

Whoa whoa whoa..... first Eva [color=Red] DIDN'T [/color] say:

[color=blue][size=1]"I admit though, it's a damnably seductive idea, that somewhere out there is a person whose 'sonar of the soul' I call it hears the echoes of them inside you and vice versa.  Some soul mate; some sense of destiny. " [/size][/color]

but then did say:

[color=Green][size=1]"...People like to believe they can just find this one thing, money, the perfect spouse, or whatever, and then just by that, they will suddenly be happy.  Too bad it doesn't work like that, LOL!"[/size][/color]

Well that is just GREAT news.  Next you will tell me that material THINGS don't bring happiness.  This spiritual growth stuff is just too painful.  

All sarcasm aside though... I do think there are people out there with stuff for us.  The trick, and its a big trick, is not to get attached....

I wuz chillin' wid some of my PSI homies the other day, and they wuz talking about how most of the big religions view all this interest in PSI.  They pointed out that many just say "DON'T" mess with all this.  But I think the real lesson from them is to avoid getting attached and lost in PSI..... again... it can be a very valuable, powerful tool in spiritual growth.   But all our interest, study and practice of RV is just a step along the great path of.... something.  At least I hope it is, now that you tell me that money, a perfect spouce, leopard skin spandex, and possesions don't lead to enlightenment.

admin, somewhere around January 11, 2004

Yes that was me that said it.

I don't really buy the soulmate idea but I like it.  It's pretty.  Then again, if you strip out the bad stuff and just leave the romance, the vampire myth is seductive too.  Such charisma, handsome, she opens her balcony door to him... such a swoon she bares her throat to his sharp teeth; he holds the power of life and death and gives her both.  I know this is some really twisted part of me but I think that's all a really cool mythology.  (And if he had Orlando Bloom's face, well let's just say, it'd be all over for me LOL.)  

It's all the yucky stuff I'm not into, but give me a totally unrealistic romance book any day. ;-)

I have met a few people in my life that I 'felt deeply' enough to think there was something more involved than temporal transactions, the coincidence of coming into contact; that I really felt (feel) there is more to us than chance or simply liking each other.  I don't write my religion around it; I accept I have no answer for it and no evidence beyond my feelings.  

But I think if such things are real--if there is any such thing as, for example, a person and I planning on some level to meet in this reality--on a friendship level, then who knows, one of those 'friends meant to be' might someday be more.  I actually felt (still feel) that my husband and I were arranged on some psi level; the fact I wanted to murder him after a short time and am now single is really beside the point; as someone pointed out, just because someone is connected doesn't mean the relationship is necessarily all a positive one. ;-)

PJ

Benton, somewhere around January 12, 2004

[size=2][color=Green]"...the fact I wanted to murder him after a short time and am now single is really beside the point; "[/color][/size]

I think that any healthy relationship or person in that relationship is gonna grow and change.  If the relationship is any good, then your "soulmate" is helping you be less needy and more self-sustaining.  

Its like that "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, which is just a metaphor for the crippling effects of marriage.  Its the wedding band that is the problem.  So this bunch of guys sets out to destroy it.  Whenever you put on the wedding ring.... of course you become invisible, its like you are not even there.  But this all-seeing eye (your spouse ) can find you anywhere because you have that darn ring on.   And everywhere you look, anyone who has had the ring is all the time mumbling "my precious, my precious" like out of some "Air Supply" song.  Yeeech!  Its nausiating.   ::)

admin, somewhere around January 12, 2004

ROFL!  That's a hilarious allegory.  I don't mind marriage, it's the having to live with someone that's a pain. ;)  Just kidding.

I recently read a trilogy of romance books (The Keys) by Nora Roberts, who very well might be the most prolific writer our planet ever spawned.  It's a wonder that woman's butt isn't the size of Montana from sitting at her computer all the time writing, it's just amazing.  

It's modern era but involves ancient gods and was surprisingly good, for romance books.  In all of them, it is a sort of destiny.  They are the one--er, the three, lol.  And each has to deal with a part of her life--in the mundane, real world--that is her biggest challenge, to solve the mystery.  It was kind-a neat-o, I thought.

But then, my balance to being boringly mundane and practical in most things is to be completely unrealistic in others, I guess!

PJ

waterway, somewhere around January 12, 2004

My wife is a wonderful person and a great blessing to me, but neither of us is that thrilled with marriage.  But... who cares?

One of the things I have been working on lately is making the mundane a time for spiritual growth.  I used to resent not having enough time for my "spiritual time", or exercise time, cuz I spent all my time washing dishes, doing laundry, driving the kids around.... or at work.  So I figured out that I could sort of do "walking meditation" but with a slight twist... now I do "laundry meditation", or "dishpan mindfullness".  Takes practice, but its fun.  Now I exercise, practice mindfullness, and rake the yard all in one event.  Life is good.  

admin, somewhere around January 12, 2004

"Chop wood, carry water."  Mindfulness is all about finding it in your every day life.

Occasionally when I am bothering to pay attention to my reality, I 'allegorize' it like a dream.  If everything represents me, you know, then every dish you wash and rinse is a tiny meditation, and taking out the trash is a major cleansing LOL.  That can be fun.

PJ

wizopeva, somewhere around January 12, 2004

THat's always the trick isn't it!  Or at least it is if you are studying misc Bhuddist or Indian traditions that teach that psi and other 'siddhis' are natural side effects of the process of enlightenment but that they can be distractors that take you from the path if you get too attached to them.  Although I've also found that one cannot simply DECIDE not to get attached.  Sometimes you just have to get attached and then work through it in good time.   It seems like there is a natural process that can be speeded up a bit with good advice, but still takes time, learning and effort on the part of the individual.  
-E



All sarcasm aside though... I do think there are people out there with stuff for us.  The trick, and its a big trick, is not to get attached....

I wuz chillin' wid some of my PSI homies the other day, and they wuz talking about how most of the big religions view all this interest in PSI.  They pointed out that many just say "DON'T" mess with all this.  But I think the real lesson from them is to avoid getting attached and lost in PSI..... again... it can be a very valuable, powerful tool in spiritual growth.   But all our interest, study and practice of RV is just a step along the great path of.... something.  At least I hope it is, now that you tell me that money, a perfect spouce, leopard skin spandex, and possesions don't lead to enlightenment.

end of messages

[END Topic 180] Friends and lovers TKR Remote Viewing Forum September 2003