Topic [81] What is Mr. McMoneagle talking about? TKR Remote Viewing Forum July 2003

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

waterway, somewhere around July 31, 2003

In the interview at:

http://www.emergentmind.org/mcmoneagle_II2.htm

Mr. McMoneagle states:

[color=Blue]The best way to improve signal line (if there really is such a an animal, which I'm more and more inclined to doubt), is purifying intent and expectation regarding focus on a specific target of interest. Your assumption remains that there is some sort of emitter of information, some form of carrier or transporter of information, and some kind of receiver of information - because you have bought into the customary model that everyone [...] believes in. Delete your assumptions from the get go and point out to me where anyone has ever proven that any of those three items exist at all? In all probability they do not. Information in its own right exists within each of our universes because that is what we need to operate. It is mutually exclusive to all other universes. Our assumption, which may be incorrect from the outset, is that everyone's universes mix - which they probably do not. [/color]

Could some of you better educated types flesh this out for me?  

energycritter, somewhere around July 31, 2003

Not better educated.....can I play anyway?

here I go....the three things he refers to.

1--emiter....point of the origin of what you think you are to receive from or via a signal line.

2--carrier....a thing that brings the thing you want to receive to you from the emiter.

3--receiver....you or a part of you that the carrier drops off the info at or connects to in order to make the handoff, so to speak.

Then he says that these three may not even exist....meaning, that, it may be more of universal overall omni present connection that we all have to the collective of the tatality of existance. He seems to be saying that it could be that we are all connected anyway, without the need to isolte a source, determined by focus and intent and then believe in a carrier and then receive into ourselves. it may be that we are just hooked up, at all times to everything, and if we purify our intent or elliminate it and just allow truth or the existance of the desired information to surface, sicne it is already connected, then we may do better at knowing and/or seeing it.

So, purify intent and focus by not limiting your receptive psi abilities to an isolated point of origin and focus. Just simply receive it from the universal state of you being the universe, others being the univers and us all over lapping in the collective of the universes....

Thereby, improve signal line by playing as if there is no signal line....matrix "there is no spoon"
(the term "matrix" was used to represent, only the MOVIE quoted, and it was NOT intended to be interpreted as the label often given to aspects of existence).... ;)

did I butcher that up enough..... ::) ::) ::)

BC the EC

Fire, somewhere around July 31, 2003

I think Joe, like Ingo is often doing in his papers online, was trying to answer the question by pointing out that the question itself contains belief systems, and those mental models may shape and filter how we think about ourselves, and RV targets, and the RV process.

Sometimes you cannot answer a question, when the question itself contains assumptions which you find to be incorrect.  

I can only give my own thoughts of course.

Our linear, logical world assumes on a point A, a point B, and something that goes from one to the other.  Reality, like some of the theories on quantum particles, might not be linear and spread out at all.  

When we perceive a target in Chicago and we're in New York, it might not be that we are separate from that target.  Space, like time, may be merely the way our body/mind has learned to interpret certain gradations of energy.  Information as a field may exist everywhere, or rather, there may not be any such thing as "where" or "when" except in how we think about things.  It's not merely that all time is one; if time is, then all space is one, too!

I am reading this good book on creativity right now, and the author gives the example of the paralyzed man who invented the motorized wheelchair.  He says, what would have happened if, instead of asking the question, "How can I be up and moving around?" which was thought to be impossible, he had instead asked, "How can I occupy my time while I'm lying here in bed?"  It would have changed the outcome of his world, and that of many others' worlds as well.

Much of novel insight and genuine creativity and just maybe, psi itself, relies on the ability to "ask the right question", and then answers tend to follow--some by logic, some by intuition or insight.  RV tasking, or dowsing, often teaches lessons about questions the hard way lol.

Learning to harness INTENT in RV, is perhaps learning to ask oneself the right question about what one wants to accomplish/experience/produce in a session.

Beyond that, I think his comments on information are pretty fascinating.  I generally believe that all realities are subjective and semi-independent (localized to the perceiver).  It is a difficult subject to get the linear brain around comfortably though.

Reading between the lines, I think what Joe MIGHT be suggesting (only he'd know :-)) --these are my own thoughts I am grafting on here I imagine--is that when a tasker asks a question about a target for a session, the target as the tasker knows it, and even the question,

(a) may contain belief-systems (let alone assumptions) that  are not accurate--perhaps at all, or perhaps just for the viewer; and

(b) that what the target "is" to the viewer, to the tasker, to the client, etc., *may not be the same target at all.*  

People assume that everything is an objective reality.  That a building, a person, a situation, is identical in the viewer's reality, as the tasker's, as the client's.  Well what if they aren't?  What if we all have our totally unique localized version of anything?

That's assuming we 'have' anything at all, until we have cause to focus on it. Perhaps information is merely potential, and only manifests where we look, LOL.

Maybe one way of clarifying session results is to specifically align one's intent with finding those aspects of seeming fact in one's own reality which MATCH the aspects of fact in the FEEDBACK reality.

So, say there are two similar but not identical pictures.  I have one, and you have another, and you give yours to a tasker, which actually generates a third.  They have similarities and differences, unique to each of us.  The tasker thinks he is assigning what is in his world, which may not even 100% match what is in the client's world, and probably doesn't 100% match what is in the viewer's, either.  

What I am targeting is perhaps not what is in my world, or even you the tasker's world, but rather, what is IN my world which matches what is in the client's world.  

So I don't necessarily want to describe aspects of the target which are entirely true in my world but not necessarily in the world of the client's existence.  Because even though I might be accurate in mine, I might not be accurate in theirs.  

Moreover, not only may facts vary between realities, but contexts might as well.  What seems most important to me, or a tasker, might not be what is most important to the client in the end result.  

But since I exist in my own reality, I have to describe what is in my reality.  Since my real goal is to describe what is the END point reality (the client's), then what I am technically tasking is the most important aspects of my reality which best match the most important aspects of the intended target of the one who will utilize or judge the data, as provisionally directed by the intentions of the tasker.  

Yes that's complicated LOL.  I'm lucky to be advanced enough for normal RV let alone metaphysics.  But this is how I interpreted what was in that interview.

Fire

waterway, somewhere around July 31, 2003

:o :o :o
Wow.... youz guys really know how to explore a quote.

Let me say that I find your insights incredibly fascinating and intellegent.  Thanks so much.

...... but that ain't what I got out of it.

1)  I think he is saying that he doesn't believe there is a sender, medium of transmittal, and receiver.

2)  He doesn't think there is a "Matrix" we visit to get info that all of us share.  Therefore, two RVers wouldn't see each other at the same task even if they bilocated there and we cannot "read each other's minds" cuz our "minds" are independent.   Okay, I think that last bit is a stretch but I am looking forward to being corrected.

3)  Free your mind, and the rest will follow....hey, that would make a good song....

But really, all that other stuff that was contributed was great... let me go read it again....

-ww

admin, somewhere around July 31, 2003

FYI I sent it to Joe, who says:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An interesting answer, (Large Chuckle) but a bit more complex even than I meant. What I was actually saying is actually even more overly simplified.

Go back to target in Chicago and we're in New York - now look at it from a Remote Viewer's viewpoint. The remote viewer is in Florida on Monday and is being asked about a target located in New York that they will eventually be given the correct answer to six months later when they will be standing in Colorado.

The perception is that information about that target must somehow travel across time (backwards six months) from New York to their location in Florida and be accurately agreeable to information they will later be given in Colorado when they travel there six months later. A place of emission which is New York (assumed); information traveling through space and time -backwards six months (assumed); and, a receiver of the information - the remote viewer (assumed).

When in actuality - within a "single universe" (the remote viewer's) the information will exist in that "single mind" at some point across time/space on it's own accord, without having traveled anywhere - on point of knowing it six months later in Colorado. Since the remote viewer will eventually know it anyway, then the remote viewer knows it always. It is time/space which is the illusion, not the passing of information where the passing of information is really not necessary. It is always in the possession of the remote viewer from the get go.

If someone can bring themselves to understand and trust this, then they have learned the real secret behind remote viewing. It's the viewer's own expectation for targeting exactness that drives the outcome. So, being able to trust those who set up the targeting and having an absolute and pristinely clean double-blind condition almost guarantees the outcome. Messing with it in any way, only trashes the system.

{Tues 31 July 2003 private email with me}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

waterway, somewhere around August 1, 2003

Well.... there you have it then.......

[size=1][color=Blue]hmmm... never thought of actually asking Mr. M..... [/color][/size]  

Okay, I am gonna risk abusing the opportunity, but I still have a few points I need clarified.  If this IS abusing Mr. M's kindness... just let me know.

And by the way, this asking questions and getting answers and responding to answers sequentially is really difficult when you are trying to convince your mind that time is an illusion....  :-/

So what I hear you saying is that you don't need feedback cuz the recongnition of the tasked site is enough.  For example, my outbounder goes to a forest, and I RV "There is an oak tree".  I don't need to go to see the oak tree, or even be told by the outbounder "There was an oak tree there", I just need to have the event of knowing there was an oak tree to know there is an oak tree because the knowledge of the oak tree as part of the target exists, I just have to recognize that it exists...?

Secondly, how does "expectation or intent" influence our access to info?  

Again, thanks.

-ww

energycritter, somewhere around August 1, 2003

Thanks Joe....

((((If someone can bring themselves to understand and trust this, then they have learned the real secret behind remote viewing. Joe M. ))))

Most excellent..... ;-) ;-) ;-)

BC the EC

mindchild, somewhere around August 1, 2003

What a wonderful thread!  Waterway, you have a great knack for putting things out there for people to think about  ;-)

And PJ, thanks so much for passing along that answer from Joe, many thanks to him too.  Much appreciated.

I love this kind of discussion, I was all set to contribute, but frankly, I am kind of speechless, going to copy and paste this page somewhere locally  ;) so I can keep it.

Laurie

waterway, somewhere around August 1, 2003

Holy shit! :o

Do you realize what Mr. McMoneagle is implying?  

(perhaps [color=Red]EVERY OTHER PERSON ON EARTH ALREADY REALIZED THIS[/color] but me... so please forgive me for gushing... but...)

That implies that the data we are pulling from somewhere does not involve us “going to the site” but instead just being inspired to report qualities of the site that later are reported to be hits.  As a matter of fact, the event site doesn’t even need to be real, it only needs to be verified.

That would explain why some info is "wrong" and other's "correct", as long as we are getting some of the correct.  And we can view "history" that never really happened, as long as the tasker says "Yep, that is what what I asked for".

So the whole dynamic gets turned around, and the perspective we use to create questions about this process is now changed....

The remote viewing is actually gathering info about the experience of correctly remote viewing.  

...this is gonna take some time....[size=1]please excuse the pun[/size] to come to terms with..... I need some coffee...  

intuitwolf, somewhere around August 1, 2003

PJ said:
[quote]Since the remote viewer will eventually know it anyway, then the remote viewer knows it always. It is time/space which is the illusion, not the passing of information where the passing of information is really not necessary. It is always in the possession of the remote viewer from the get go. [/quote]

I have experience with working with the subconscious from this point of view in Kahuna work (i.e., the Max Freedom Long perspective).  In that work the basic self,  (subconscious) is holographically present within every cell of the body and in essence responsible for the integrity of the bodily pattern.  And yet, this [sub] consciousness which contains all memory of our existence, is capable of residing outside of the body, and of eventual independence from the body.  

The conscious mind thinks -- and the higher self (superconscious mind) is what  Max Freedom Long calls that portion of self which is 'god within', or the 'lesser god', and yet it also resides beyond or above the human realm of experience. He maintains that this superconscious aspect of self is developed through union of the mental (conscious) and emotional (subconscious) aspects of man. Although church dogma teaches that man has but one soul, Max notes, "men have been reciting endlessly, 'In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost -- three in one, world without end. Amen.'" It should be noted here that the High self is posited as 'rooted' in the chest (i.e., heart chakra) -- and traditional energy work with the emotional body seeks to raise the emotional centers sense of self to connection with that root.

There are other correlations that could be made. For instance in the writings of Ouspensky and Gurdjieff, knowledge and essence must both develop, in balance, if man hopes to attain unity of self. The Chinese conceptualize the need to balance yin and yang. Many cultures have told the tale of the mythic struggle preceding the divine union of the Queen and King. In all systems the foremost tenant is that balance and unity of polarized aspects of self culminate in the creation of that which is greater than either individual element - the 'magical body of light'.

In the Kahuna system of thought there can be no knowledge of past or present unless there is a cooperative interchange between the selves. In other words the conscious mind must have clear intent when it asks it's question of the subconcious who has access in it's own timeless realm to all knowledge within the realm of the individual experience through all time or should we say 'no time'. But, should the information requested lie outside of one's experience in the collective consciousness, then the question is passed to the superconscious aspect of mind.  Only in this way does one access information that  does not rely upon one's own -- very extensive but still limited -- 'memory' of all 'past/ present/ future' realities.  The subconscious does have access to it's own realm of existence as Joe postulates -- but a unity of all three aspects of self enable even greater access to that which lies beyond your 'current' individual experience.  

We are each growing expanding beings. One day the totality of my experience throughout all time/no-time may include x, y, and z. But with some work on self and the unity of self suppose I can manage to 'add' to the totality of self an a, b, and c? Ah, then I'm not limited to Shelia's present  life/lives/realities --  and that is how a, b, and c become part of my future experience that the subconscious mind can access. But I suppose that also postulates the idea of some modicum of Free Will.  Some folks believe it all 'is as it is and ever will be' - now. And to an extent I believe that too. But I also believe that all-that-is includes the dynamism of a reality in which we do have the capacity and freedom to create experience, to add to self, to learn not only what our greater self consists of but to actually add to the capacity, knowledge, essence of that greater self.

LOL! Now I'm all spaced out. Gotta get back to work.
Shelia  

admin, somewhere around August 1, 2003

He also added (there might be more, we are having quite a discussion on it via PEM, I'll see if he has more to say for the public) --

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now that you understand what I have said conceptually, you will understand that -

Since current physics agree that all things just are - this must also include information. So, all information that will ever exist within a remote viewer's world also "just is," they have no reason to go anywhere for it, nor is there any reason to have information come from  anywhere to them. Such information should also be pristinely correct if it is assumed to be found within its own nature complete and unspoiled.

It is therefore a lack of belief in the purity of this nature, the flawed belief based on a flawed teaching, or perhaps the flawed protocol going in, that tarnishes or trashes the information conceptually, that therein adds information that shouldn't in fact be there in the first place.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Glyn, somewhere around August 2, 2003

Hi PJ and all,

I think Waterway hit on something in his mail that was a bit like an explosion going off in his mind (hope the coffee helped :-)).  I find it equally amazing. I have been mulling this concept over and over for years (Some may have seen my posts on the subject on PJRV and others). I don't like boring others by droning on about it....but seeing as the opportunity presented itself.......  ;).....

If you get the chance PJ, and Joe has the time to respond, could you please ask him what he thinks of Future Memory Theory (ah la.. J W Dunne)?

In Dunne's theory what we now call feedback would be  'all important'. I think that what we experience as linear time is at the root of RV/clairvoyance.

It could be that we access the feedback, or more likely our future memories of it. These of course, can be distorted, (as any memories can be), and can include 'interference' caused by other interesting events happening close in time, imagination, speculation...including 'blurring' caused by feedback being sparse or taking place in stages or a long hence. Distortion could also be caused when 'transferring' the information from the future memory into the current memory.

I also think that being able to access this information at the correct point in time is vital, so being able to focus intent properly (viewer tasking) would be a definite advantage.

Whether this works via accessing our memories in the future or whether it works some other way entirely, remains to be seen; it is only a theory like many others. Grist for the 'pot'. I like the current thinking about multi-dimensions though, because we would not have to access information down the timeline...we maybe could take a short cut 'sideways' :-).

All speculation yes.. but I just wonder what Joe thinks about this PJ. He has oodles of experience and is not afraid to prove that he can 'walk the walk', and walk it very well. He is bound to have noticed whether the quality/type of his feedback seems to have influenced his sessions.....if you see what I mean.

Kind regards,
Glyn

admin, somewhere around August 2, 2003

Slightly more, edited I admit, from PEM but I'm sure he's ok with this part being posted publicly:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PJ: But you commented: "Information in its own right exists within each of our universes because that is what we need to operate. It is mutually exclusive to all other universes. Our assumption, which may be incorrect from the outset, is that everyone's universes mix - which they probably do not."  I thought you were making a point about subjective realities, and reality (hence info) being different in each personal universe. That's where I got that tangent.

Joe:  That is correct. However, the information which is mutually exclusive to all other universes (our assumption of mixed universes being incorrect) is always a pure answer and correct - because it is the only answer which "WE WILL OBSERVE."

Never mind anyone else. No one else is important in the equation of expectation here. It is the perfect circle.

But like the imperfect circle of wishing to include unnecessary signal lines, everyone always wants to drag in other universes of (peoples) expectations, other (peoples) probabilities, other (peoples) desires, etc., etc., ad nauseum-- all the time out smarting themselves into an oblivion of turning what otherwise could be a nice clean remote viewing into a mix-master of sludge they have to try and then see through.

PJ:  The problem is, this model appears to presuppose that  (a) one always receives feedback, and (b) one always receives feedback on every element of data one obtains.

Joe:  In a perfect world yes. So, in my world it is a perfect world. In the world at large it is not. I sometimes go for sixteen years without feedback as a result. When I get it, my remote viewing proves to be correct. Sometimes when I get feedback I am eventually proven to have been correct when I was originally judged to have been wrong. Something the guy on the street doesn't know. But I know and that is what counts. Sometimes I don't get any feedback at all. So what?

PJ: In a way, it comes off as if you are tasking our interpretation of the feedback instead of the target.  Maybe in ARV that works, but it seems problematic in regular RV when the feedback is so often screwed up,
partial, or even nonexistent.

Joe: If that happens in training then it is unconscionable. It will happen in real life and you learn to live with it. That's what faith is all about. Either you have faith in what you do you don't. That's where doing it the right way comes in. If you do it the right way and with the right protocol then you develop a deep and abiding faith in remote viewing - you make the leap of faith in belief in what you are doing. You can't help but do that.

If you are bending the rules or not following the protocols exactly, then you know that too, and it makes it impossible to develop that faith, it makes it impossible to make the leap. If you bend the rules just a little bit you cannot make the leap. It's just like the scene out of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where he steps off the edge of the cliff and his foot hits the hidden bridge he can't see between the lions gate. He needed absolute faith to take that step.

If a person doesn't absolutely follow the rules all the way, they will never develop the faith to take the leap onto the bridge, and if they never take the step onto the bridge, then they will never know what I'm talking about here.

{more on the probabilities/multiverse issues...}

Joe: Look, if for all time "all things are" then it is obvious that all probabilities exist for any given moment in time. In other words, in the next moment of time there are a million probabilities for what will happen. I agree with that. However, rationality dictates that statistically only one has a 99.9% probability of happening first, that two have a 99.8% probability of happening second, and four have a 99.7% of happening third, etc., and so forth. In other words, there is a hierarchy for which might or might not occur first, second, third, etc., based on what just happened. So, we have all kinds of what might happen, based on what just did happen, etc.

The further out into time you go, the higher the degree of "waffability" you get because the probability becomes weaker the further you go from the causality events, that is the events which might be a cause for what might happen next (cause and effect relationships break down over time). These are simple logical inferences.

But, so far we are talking about multiple probabilities, which everyone is always talking about. Everyone is always getting wrapped around the axle talking about them. Everyone gets confused talking about them. They exist, I agree. But within them, there is only one truth - the singular event which will occur. It is the only event which is real. Beyond that one event, nothing else exists in physical space/time. It is the only event that will occur and the only event that can happen. Nothing else can or will happen in space/time. It is the moment of truth.

There are millions of moments of truth strung together to form universes. There are billions of universes hanging about everywhere we look. Reach out and you are putting your hand through millions of universes of space/time. Your hand is in tangency with millions of universes of space/time. We push and rub our way through billions of them as we walk across a room. But, subjectively we can only sense very few of them with our sensing abilities because they are so primitive (or are they?) In any event, remove viewing can be used to sense ahead in time to a point where a subject event will occur that is freeze frame cohesive and tangent to billions of other universes simultaneously in space/time. And we can describe it with some relative accuracy.

And it is a single moment of truth, not a multiple probability event. I think that is absolutely remarkable. Is that so difficult to understand?

{Lots of other stuff not really fit for public or on this topic, but I wanted to add a couple tidbits, this one related to the 'amazed' post a few above: }

Joe: I'm NOT talking about feedback! I'm talking about the target event in reality!

{another quote worth including:}

Joe: There are no tricks to remote viewing. There is a gross simplicity to remote viewing. It is a stripping away of things. It is a Zen of seeing. It is paying attention to the simplicity of detail. It is not paying attention to a lot of detail. It is paying attention to self and not paying attention to others. It is paying attention to the world within us and not paying attention to the world around us. It is killing the ego and not feeding it.

{another small one:}

Joe: I do not want to get all wrapped around the axle teaching remote viewing. It is not my bag so to speak. What I understand about teaching tells me that to teach it appropriately would take a lot longer than most would be willing to invest in time and energy. I certainly don't have the time or energy to invest.

{another small one:}

Joe: I say in my books "you need to follow the protocol and be double blind (so that it creates belief in self and RV), and have an expectation that the right answer will just be delivered to you (faith in the process). Those are kind of strong hints on how it works.  

But, most people don't believe that I guess, they'd rather pay $thousands to me or someone to give them The Secrets to remote viewing.

{On a separate topic I thought worth including:}

Joe: I've always said - you've heard this a million times from me - if you can't have fun doing this then quit now. This should be fun darn it. Not work. It should always be fun. This is not serious stuff. It's fun to do, not work. It is FUN, damn it! What kind of stuff is it, if you are getting beat up over it all the time?  Why can't people form clubs and have fun doing this stuff, instead of getting overserious and paying tons of money and everybody so serious about things?  I don't get it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
end quotes

MTFox, somewhere around August 3, 2003

Hi PJ & all,

my first post here, so a shy but big hello to everyone!

[quote] Joe: Our assumption, which may be incorrect from the outset, is that everyone's universes mix - which they probably do not.
[...]
But within them [the multiple universes], there is only one truth - the singular event which will occur.
[...]
There are millions of moments of truth strung together to form universes.[/quote]

I never really thought about our individual universes never mixing, and the implications of that are driving me crazy... (in a good way <g>) I don't know if I understood half of the discussion, but here's how I see it (please correct me):

I choose (free will?) a more or less linear string of singular moments of truth that make up my universe, sort of like connecting a series of adjacent "bubbles" in a multidimensional "foam" of possibilities.

From within the linear structure, I might call that string of truths/events "my life". From outside, it actually defines "me". Every different string is another universe is another "I", seperate and complete in itself.

In every universe then, I can only ever see MY future (or past) because whatever I say about YOUR future would still only be your future in MY future. Effectively, there is no you and I'm all alone (bummer...). Of course that's true for everyone, because we ARE that cosmic bubble bath. (I only have a shower, unfortunately...)

Anyway, if I want to RV something that is seemingly outside my temporal/local identification point (ego), I still have all the information "inside me", ¾since "I" am actually defined by the specific sequence of truths (out of multiple probable events) that form "my" universe. Now, if I could trust that and stay completely "true to myself", all answers from within me would have to be pure and correct, because that's what I am in myself.

Is that the "trust" and "leap of faith" Joe was talking about? (Am I making any sense? Should I go back to Kindergarten or just to bed?)

Bye for tonight
& thanks for this forum,
---Michael

(who will probably be dreaming about foam baths now)

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 3, 2003

Hi Michael....welcome!

[quote]Now, if I could trust that and stay completely "true to myself", all answers from within me would have to be pure and correct, because that's what I am in myself.
[/quote]

    What immediately came to mind when I read this is:
but do we get all of the whole truth at the same time??...and depending on our personal evolvement & intelligence, will we know the truth when it is offered? We only see or understand what we are able to at certain phases of our lives.

    Think of all the adages we were told when we were young kids. Do onto others as you would have them do unto you or there but for the grace of God go I and I'm sure you can think of plenty also.  As youngsters we said 'huh?"  when a little older we say 'yeah, but..." and a little older still we say 'oh, I see now I think' and then 'hmmm...not so black and white anymore...look at all the layers here' to hopefully....'Wow! I get it now!"

    The same truth was there all along, it just took longer to get to the core of it...to own it for ourselves. The truth never changed, but we did.

    Just a little thinking outloud here .... It's 11 pm....my mulling hour  ;-)

Mystic_Rhythms, somewhere around August 3, 2003

A thought just struck me...

Joe muses, why isnt RV more fun?  Why isnt the field more fun?  (paraphrasing)

And I recall, my best work to date, have been the targets I was excited to work.  Having fun doing.

My instructor gets me excited about my work when it is "on".  I think that is really key.  Having fun.  It is goofy fun to really nail a target too.  ;)

Part of my cool down from now on, is to get a little excited first... make sense?  Who knows, its worth a shot.

Note what he also said about killing the ego too, another sage observation.

MR

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 3, 2003

    I see you are a late night thinker too !

.......so.....
                 are we having fun yet?? ;-)

I'm sure you are right about this fun approach idea. I'm going to do the same as you. I'm gonna get my pen and papers all lined up, pour myself a drink of 'ego kill' and prepare to get excited.

    I'll let you know .... ;-)

Fire, somewhere around August 4, 2003

MR,
[quote]Part of my cool down from now on, is to get a little excited first... make sense?[/quote]
This reminds me that months ago after rereading some of a Steiner book, I was musing and had this sudden thought about 'stages' of 'mental' preparation for an RV session, and was in the state of mind where it suddenly seemed correlated with stages followed in nearly everything one accomplished, as if this was like some fundamental nature of the way everything works.  

I wrote them down and ended up having a very strange time--channeled (not an entity!--just "information")--and initially I thought for some reason it was applying to my own life (my relationship with my former husband), but it seemed to go beyond that, and I really wondered why that particular info was coming through.  I found that how I focused would alter the 'course' of the info, as if it were a river and I could so easily divert the stream.  In the end that actually annoyed me because I couldn't seem to keep my mind focused on one/the same thing for more than a minute--because what came through had such interest that it sent me off in other directions.  It was a delightful experience, though a bit odd.  In retrospect I wish I'd pushed it longer, but I was sleepy, lol.

Anyway, I think getting excited is actually part of the necessary process.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around August 4, 2003

Thanks for all the relaying of info, PJ.

Though I am still excited about getting a greater understanding of the mechanics of the RV process, Mr. McMoneagle's emphasis seems to be on practice and retraining the mind.   I have the feeling that may lead to a clearer understanding of the dynamics involved.  In any case, it will [color=Blue]at least[/color] add more joy to my life, which is a very good thing.

I am left with the question of "What is it that pollutes our minds to block access to information?".   What stops us from living in that [color=Red]"perfect world"[/color] Joe M. talks of?  Is it our fears?  It is our learned belief that we are incomplete?  

Perhaps a joyful practice of trusting ourself gets us to the place where we make the leap of trusting our natural perfection.

There's one way to find out......

River, somewhere around August 4, 2003

Oh what a 'coincidence'! I started a topic last night, before I read all this about the passion of RV.  :o

And after reading all this thread just now I feel sooo excited because I know exactly what Joe is hinting at.

[quote]So, in my world it is a perfect world. In the world at large it is not.[/quote]

I really understand what Joe is saying here.....at least my interpretation of it in my perfect world. LOL

And it's wound right in with Joe saying that the secret is learning to have faith, to trust in ourselves.

I agree. I discovered this trick a few years back, way before I discovered RV, but I don't know how to explain it to anyone.

It's a feeling, a knowing deep down that I create my world by my intent and beliefs.

This knowing has a lot of power. Power to make [color=Red]anything[/color] happen. Power to move mountains in fact! Literally. But we need to believe.

As far as I can figure it, what happens is that we create our beliefs perfectly. We create them [color=Orange]exactly[/color] as we believe.

If we 'sort of' believe we will get the right data during a session then we will create that belief 100%.

We will 'sort of' get the right data. We will have created that belief perfectly.
 
But if we can raise our beliefs to the point of knowing we will get 'perfect' data we will then create that belief 100% thereby creating our world to bring that about. We will then get perfectly correct data.

Joe believes his world is perfect and in his world he will be right..........so therefore he is! It's that simple.

I believe that this is MY universe. You are all here yet it's my universe to play with, to create in. I get whatever my intent is. (and so do you in your universe)

This has been taught for 1000's of years yet has nothing to do with religion. You know the bit where Jesus says if only you had faith as small as a mustard seed you could move mountains. Well take that[color=Purple] literally[/color].

But there is a catch. You have to somehow make yourself believe it and Joe uses strict RV protocol to make himself believe.

I use my belief that I create my own universe......but it's still a new belief for me and I keep on forgetting. My aim is to remember this ALL the time until it's the norm and I can have perfect faith that I will create what I want, how I want, when I want.  ;-)

Did I explain that very well or did I botch it? :P

The thing is we all have different beliefs, but have a look at how they get created 100% accurately. So change your beliefs and you will change your physical world.  ;-)

So many old sayings are relevant to this. One of them is, "Know thy self and you will know the universe".

If we know our beliefs and intentions well enough we will see how they are being created all around us. They create our entire universe.......literally.

Happy creating folks.
Liz

admin, somewhere around August 4, 2003

You explained it fabulously!

Joe would be pleased to know his point got through. :-)

The protocol joe speaks of -- this is the double-blind situation and having feedback -- done regularly, constantly, over a period of time -- is in his experience (both himself and watching others for 20+ years) the ONLY thing that can *force* the human psychology into accepting psi at the inner-fundamental-psychology level needed.  It's the only thing that moves people from suspecting, and then believing, to KNOWING in that cosmic sort of way.  Without double-blind protocol, the subconscious KNOWS that there are ways of physiologically picking up data, no matter what the conscious mind wants to believe, because the sub is doing it constantly.  So it is always giving itself a 'doorway out' of having to change a core-construct.  In protocol, there is no door out, there is only the eventually forced change.

If you haven't yet, read the interviews with Joe from RV Oasis/pjrv, they are on the Firedocs RV website.  He specifically talks about belief systems and psychology and such in there and I think it was an invaluable sort of interview where the group got to ask him anything, and he really took a lot of time and effort to answer and be complete where he could--a group of viewers coming up with the Q's is much better than any media interview imo! [url]http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/pjrv_interviews.cfm[/url]

PJ

Mystic_Rhythms, somewhere around August 4, 2003

Hmm...

This concept of "eventual feedback" combined with "time as an illusion" has been churning around in my noggin for about a week.  And like an old punch-card computer of the 70s, a bell has sounded (ding!) and a small idea has popped out.

To explain, I must add this- I think this is in Mind Trek... the mars session.  With the pyramids, obelisks, big people etc.  His location data matches up with the topology that we can see.  But as far as feedback goes... if that was one million years ago... then I theorize this-

We always recieve feedback.  And it need not be from ourselves in our physical alive state.  IE, it might be later...

My wacky idea for today.  Joes stuff is fun to interpret, as he says it so simply, yet the concepts clearly are not.  At least not to me.  Hurts my brain some days...  

---

(PS I posted this originally elsewhere, reposting here as it feels more appropriate to do so.)

And Liz- an addition to that.  Start having faith that life is more beautiful, then take a look at the scenery around you.  That can have an astounding affect.

MR

admin, somewhere around August 4, 2003

Hi MR,

[quote]This concept of "eventual feedback" combined with "time as an illusion" has been churning around in my noggin for about a week.[/quote]

I think in a way, and this is hard because the words we use sometimes confuse more than help (!), Joe is actually not just referring to feedback that we are consciously handed, but just to reality, which perhaps functions as psi-feedback.  

In other words, say we do a session on something that might happen in 2 weeks.  We never get feedback.  

Yet, in 2 weeks, the single-manifested-reality comes to be.  At THAT point, our psi at least KNOWS the single-reality-fact-result.

In other words, maybe it isn't about what is SHOWN us consciously, but rather, simply about whatever IS -- the actual target reality -- when it happens.

It might be that even if we don't get feedback and even if the feedback we got was wrong, that our psi 'knows' what the future held because it knows the future because it IS the future, just as it is everywhere/when else.

[quote]We always recieve feedback.  And it need not be from ourselves in our physical alive state.  IE, it might be later...[/quote]

Yeah, that is like my comment to Joe that if he was referring to after-death feedback that was hard, lol.  But even for future targets which do have an outcome during our lifetime, and even for those which we never get feedback for, at the moment that eventuality becomes manifest--becomes the singular-reality--maybe we know.  On some level, I mean.
 
[quote]Joes stuff is fun to interpret, as he says it so simply, yet the concepts clearly are not.  At least not to me.  Hurts my brain some days...[/quote]

Yeah I know.  Seth has the same effect on me.

[quote]Start having faith that life is more beautiful, then take a look at the scenery around you.  That can have an astounding affect. [/quote]

Yeah.  Wish I could be mindful of that more often.

I have found that a very specific framework: that of believing, and seeing, that "all is exactly as it should be" in the world, a few times when I've made an exercise out of holding this concept as constantly as I can, within a few weeks, my reality started changing (and improving) dramatically.

PJ

Scott_Ellis, somewhere around August 4, 2003

[quote]Since current physics agree that all things just are - this must also include information. So, all information that will ever exist within a remote viewer's world also "just is," they have no reason to go anywhere for it, nor is there any reason to have information come from  anywhere to them. Such information should also be pristinely correct if it is assumed to be found within its own nature complete and unspoiled.[/quote]

My gut instinct tends to buy into this hypothesis.  I wonder how this plays with Joe M's current view of displacement.  -)oes this mean that with a perfectly scoring displaced session the viewer simply chose, albeit unconsciously, to access the wrong information?  It seems unlikely that a simple miss would perfectly hit another target from the same session's pool so frequently.  I wonder if I'm correct in concluding that he also discounts the probabilistic outcome explanation for displacement.

Scott

admin, somewhere around August 4, 2003

Well, probably.  Joe told me accuracy on ARV should be no different than accuracy on regular RV.  

He seems to consider (my interpretation of talks we've had) the "influence" of anything to be relative to the quality of the viewer.  

In other words, that the better the viewer, the less 'influence' anything--displacement in ARV, telepathic overlay from tasker or other viewers, etc.--should have.

My impression is also that he believes that the more a viewer believes such things can and/or will affect a session, the more they will.  That it is critical that the viewer believe such things will NOT impact their session.

If this is so, then it is critical that a viewer in ARV never know they clearly described 'the wrong target'.  It was never a target.  The target was only what happened and that didn't happen.  Being made aware of this would only contribute to their belief systems about the 'interference' of something in their session results.

PJ

mikr46, somewhere around August 8, 2003

Although a number of people have posted on this, I thought I would add my interpretation of Mr. McMoneagle's statement.

In summary, he reiterates his position, oft stated in most everthing he has written, know what you want and what you expect to learn or discover.  Then keep your mind as open as possible and keep it as simple as you can. You have some 'natural' ability to do this but only 'focussed' practice will let you improve your 'view'. It is your perception you are/ should be developing- your information not others.  Therefore it is your 'information' derived from the information(data) presented by the 'subconscious'.  

Since the question asked him implied a communication analogy to gathering RV data/information, he first addressed the accuracy of that analogy in his perception. He states that in his experience the analogy does not hold together and may mislead you. You just can't 'beef-up the gain' or 'twist that dial' !! so to speak it is a bit more 'complicated'.

And that's all I have to say!!

Mike

waterway, somewhere around August 8, 2003

Hi Mike,

Thanks for clarifying what Joe M. was saying.  

Could you take some time and explain what you mean by [color=Brown]'complicated'[/color]?  I cannot promise that I will understand the complexities, but I would appreciate reading about them.

Thanks again.
-ww

mikr46, somewhere around August 8, 2003

Hello WW:

I guess that I was a little unclear in my remark. I was referring to the fact that in communictions a number of problems can be overcome by increasing signal gain, better tuning to carrier/ signal. And these 'improvements' can be done anywhere from the transmitter/ receiver etc. However, in RV, Mr. McMoneagle states that, in his experience there really is no transmitter/receiver/carrier that he can define. Therefore external help to improve 'reception' will not work in RV. It has to be internal to the viewer. Therefore, IMO, it is a little more complex. No one can give you the answer, except you. And IMO, that by default makes it a little more complex, since it you getting to know you.  -)oes that make sense to you?

Mike

waterway, somewhere around August 8, 2003

Mike asked:

[color=LimeGreen].... you getting to know you.  Does that make sense to you? [/color]

Yes, in a gnostic sorta way.  I have to "know" it, myself.  All that stuff about "signal line" and "noise".... well, I am the "noise" and the "knowledge".  Is that it?  

Thanks for your help.

-ww

Fire, somewhere around August 8, 2003

I think if getting to know ourselves is that complex, it is usually because culturally we have learned to make it so, lol.  Knowing ourselves ought to be considerably easier than knowing and understanding anybody else.

Most anybody who's been married awhile can attest to that, lol.  (Especially if they're married to a woman. Double-lol!)

T-bone, somewhere around September 5, 2003

I'm sorry, but I need to inject some humor here ;-)

PJ had posted from Joe:

{On a separate topic I thought worth including:}

Joe: I've always said - you've heard this a million times from me - if you can't have fun doing this then quit now. This should be fun darn it. Not work. It should always be fun. This is not serious stuff. It's fun to do, not work. It is FUN, damn it! What kind of stuff is it, if you are getting beat up over it all the time?  Why can't people form clubs and have fun doing this stuff, instead of getting overserious and paying tons of money and everybody so serious about things?  I don't get it.

;-) It seems that even the Chief has to much coffee now and then. ;-)

Fire, somewhere around September 6, 2003

Or too much grisly email.  ;)

PJ

Ertai, somewhere around September 15, 2003

Hey PJ, I would like to make a little question

Hope you dont mind responding   :-/

Do you have a constant way to contact Joe M. ?
Thru email, msn, etc ?

If yes, that must be great  ;-)

And BTW, were you the same PJ that Joe M. talked about, and thanked in one of his books? (I have 3 right here but cant remember wich)

Cya

wizopeva, somewhere around September 15, 2003

Yup, I imagine that must be her.  I know of no other PJ in rvland.
-E




[quote]

And BTW, were you the same PJ that Joe M. talked about, and thanked in one of his books? (I have 3 right here but cant remember wich)

Cya[/quote]

waterway, somewhere around December 5, 2003

:)When I started this thread many moons ago, I had no idea I'd actually get to hear Mr. McMoneagle speak, so now I can try to relay what he said.

Mr. McMoneagle visited the Rhine Center in Durham NC this evening and gave us 3 hours of lecture, Q&A, a few practice targets, and a time for book signings.  

Now the toughest part of this post will be keeping it concise and not rambling for pages and pages.  After figuring out that the map I found on the internet was frickin' useless, and after cursing a lot at Duke University for not using what we in the civilized world refer to as "Street signs", I finally found my way to the Rhine Center with 15 minutes to spare.  Sheesh... there were only a half dozen cars in the parking lot, and I felt bad that he was gonna get such a poor showing.  I went in, paid my $15.00, and got a good seat.  But within a few minutes, the place was crammed full of folks, all eager to hear the speaker.

Sally Feather gave a nice intro, and Mr. McMoneagle went into his presentation.  Let me just say that he was a really nice, easy-going guy who seemed to love RV and his history with it.  Really pleasant and approachable.  He had an overhead projector presenetation where he discussed the evolution of the concepts of how RV worked.  Hand-outs sure would have been nice, especially since I noticed that when I am excited, like I was there, my handwriting devolves into some strange, indecipherable scratching that resemples the EEG of a gran mal seizure.  Anyway, I did my best at taking notes.

Honestly, the lecture part of the event was kinda uncomfortable.... I don't think most of the people there spend a lot of time reading just on RV, cuz they were asking a lot of questions whose answers could be found here on this site or on the Firedocs site.  It was uncomfortable because the conepts he discussed seemed to be going over the heads of lots of folks there.  Maybe I am just dense.... but even though I have read all his books and read what PJ has relayed from him, and most of the firedocs stuff.... a lot of it was getting past me.  It was quiet.... edgy quiet.  Now of course, maybe I am projecting about the confusion, but after a while folks started asking him to repeat stuff and to  give examples, and that made things better.  Joe also didn't wrap-up by saying "And that is how it works!"  He showed the evolution of the understanding of RV, but admitted that there was still a lot of questions unanswered.  I got the nerve to ask a question, and he said "We just don't know", to which I replied "I paid 15 bucks... I want some answers!"  and they asked me to leave... okay, I made that last part up. LOL!  The tension of the lecture was broken when he had us do 2 practice taskings.  BTW, we didn't do very well and he said so, which was kinda funny... but nobody laughed... and the practice targets really loosened everyone up.  Next he answered questions for a long while, and shared stories of his adventures in the Army and Stargate.  

He was sharing his stories of his efforts in Lucid Dreaming, and ended by asking "Do we know what reality is?  What is real?", to which I replied "Fifteen dollars is real!....damn!"..... okay, I made that up too.  Mostly I just sat that and listened intently, periodically scribbling notes.

Oh, an in the middle of the lecture I had one of those darn deja vu things where you feel like you've seen this movie before... very distracting.  

The Rhine Center people were also very nice.  It was unusual to be around a bunch of people who have my same interest.... actually this was a first.  

As for the content... here are some of the highlights.

1. There is no information transfer, all the information is there.  He said they have tried EVERYTHING to sheild PSI, and the only effective thing to stop it is doubt.

2. He and Ed May believe that PSI comes through our reptilian brain.

3. Ego subdues PSI, and training the ego to limit the ego helps RV.  He advocates meditation practice.  

4. Instead of a physical being tapping into some well of consciousness, he has grown to see himself as "A consciousness being with a physical connection to reality.  All information becomes accessible across time/space and the primary or driving influence is the remote viewers conscious intent and expectancy for outcome."  At least, I think that is what he said, remember my notes are ragged.

5. If you know you can RV, you can RV.  

6. When he RVs, he is patient.  He takes down gobs of sketches and notes.  Gobs.... waits..... gets more info.... delays his conclusion.

7. Intent of everyone in the project is important.  

I got the impression that despite all the questions, most of us were left with more questions than we arrived with.  I sure was.

Like:

1. What does the reptilian brain have to do with intent.  If intent is so important.... does the reptilian brain have intent?  Or does intent cancel out the ego that is getting in the reptilian brain's way?

2. Obviously PSI is very valuable.  And it would really greatly increase reproductive potential in an organism.  Given that, why has it evolved out of humans to such a great extent?  If the reptilian brain had it.... what evolved traits could beat it?  Why evolve past it?  I really want to hear that explained.

3. Why don't they serve snacks at these things?  Fifteen frickin's dollars and I can't get a cookie and a cup of coffee?  LOL!  

Yes there was more, but these were the high points for me.  

It was a hoot, and worth every penny.  

Anotherdreamer, somewhere around December 5, 2003

Thank You Waterway  for sharing...You are a "hoot." I think he is wrong about the reptilian brain.  I hope he’s wrong.  I think it is inherent, true and I’ll agree that it’s primal but I think no matter where it originated we haven’t lost it.  

admin, somewhere around December 5, 2003

Thanks Benton, that was interesting!

Two of the points bear repeating:

1 - the only thing that can impede/block RV is doubt, and

2 - if you know you can RV, you can RV.

Both of these are behind the insistence of constant, regular practice, in protocol--to entrain the belief systems, the psychology, to opening up to it and to believing and then finally 'knowing'.  Asked in the pjrv interviews what % of RV did he think psychology played, he said, "All of it."  I think that's pretty important.

PJ

The_Spook, somewhere around December 6, 2003

I am enjoying this thread....

Re:  T Bone's wry observations about having fun.  Although this takes plenty of discipline, heck yes, if you aren't enjoying it, why bother...

So what I'm getting from this too is that the information is all out there, we just have to bring it in....whether it is past, present or future....since we'll eventually be there, it doesn't matter....

And to be successful in RV you have to think you are - power of mind over matter so to speak....the power of positive thinking (yeah I know what a canned phrase but you get my drift)....

I am just beginning my first sessions and as a rank bumbling amateur I must say that going into it with a positive "can do" attitude helps.  You have to want this, I think.  You have to want to find that target.  We're getting into the emotions here some but I don't mean to become emotional about the target, just that you have to desire to locate it.  

Was nice of Mr. M to share his thoughts....I learned a lot from this thread.  Thanks guys.

wizopeva, somewhere around December 6, 2003

I got the impression that despite all the questions, most of us were left with more questions than we arrived with.  I sure was.

Like:

2. Obviously PSI is very valuable.  And it would really greatly increase reproductive potential in an organism.  Given that, why has it evolved out of humans to such a great extent?  If the reptilian brain had it.... what evolved traits could beat it?  Why evolve past it?  I really want to hear that explained.


What makes you say psi has evolved out of humans?  Maybe it has over time evolved into humans?  How many times to we talk about luck, intuition, gut instinct, a hunch, a feeling, etc?  Recently scientists have stated that all conscious thoughts evolve first in the subconscious.  -)oesn't psi also come from there?  Maybe every single thought you have is influenced by psi.  Maybe every time you consider a bunch of parameters and make a decision, perhaps the weight you give each of the parameters and the ones that you choose to think of in the first place, are influenced by psi and self fulfilling prophesy?  

Historically speaking, it's only recently in western civilization that the general public has drifted towards the view of not believing so much in psi but that doesn't inherently mean it's not there for us.  It could be just a matter of denial, just as some people are in love with another but deny it to themselves, do things for selfish reasons, but deny it to themselves, etc etc.  Basically, humans are rather good at rationalizing their reality to fit their preconcieved notions.
-E  

waterway, somewhere around December 8, 2003

Mr. McMoneagle showed a slide on the 2 ways to learn to RV.  One involved years of training and practice with thousands of targets.  The second was instantly knowing you can RV.  Its like enlightenment in the religious context.  One way is years or lifetimes of training and practice, another way is instant knowing.   Practice and familiarity are very valuable.

Mr. McMoneagle also emphasized that RV is not a toy, its a powerful thing that has great potential for harm to the RVer.   He seemed saddened that it was being peddled so freely.  I got from his comments that it best taken gently, consistantly, and with a lot of grounding.  

...and as for PSI evolving OUT of people, Mr. McMoneagle commented that he felt that the connection to the total info on everything was taking place through the ancient "reptilian" inner part of our brain.  Other layers and functions of the brain have evolved around that primitive brain, and he seemed to say that those functions were overshadowing the PSI functions as we have become more "advanced".  I would think he would say that the PSI connection is still there, but now-days more drowned out by the noise the ego and conceptual world.  Everyone is invited to correct me if they know better.  

Anotherdreamer, somewhere around December 8, 2003

[quote]Mr. McMoneagle showed a slide on the 2 ways to learn to RV.  One involved years of training and practice with thousands of targets.  The second was instantly knowing you can RV.  Its like enlightenment in the religious context.  One way is years or lifetimes of training and practice, another way is instant knowing.   Practice and familiarity are very valuable.

Mr. McMoneagle also emphasized that RV is not a toy, its a powerful thing that has great potential for harm to the RVer.   He seemed saddened that it was being peddled so freely.  I got from his comments that it best taken gently, consistantly, and with a lot of grounding.  

[/quote]Do you have specifics about the potential harm?  My question is not if we can RV but why should we? What is our motive?  What is our intent?

waterway, somewhere around December 8, 2003

[color=Red]"
Do you have specifics about the potential harm?  My question is not if we can RV but why should we? What is our motive?  What is our intent?"
[/color]

Very good questions.  Others have much to say on this topic, it has been discussed energetically here and on other related forums.

The specific harm is that if you go wandering around in your psyche and opening up doors that have previously been shut.... metaphorically speaking.... you can cause some instability.   RV education, practice and experimentation can be very stressful, very traumatic sometimes, and it is not for the faint of heart or folks already with a tenuous hold on reality.  Mr. McMoneagles recounting of his Lucid Dreaming experiences displayed that they were discontinued simply because he was "loosing grip".   That's why I think people need a really strong support somewhere in their life to do this, you need friends and/or family who gives you room to explore and can keep you grounded.  Mr. McMoneagle was giving out some depressing numbers relating to the frequency of disaster from the Stargate viewers.   I asked "Was it the job or RV that caused the problems" and he answered "both", but that RV is stressful and powerful in any case.  You are messing with the basic mechanics of the mind, and that is dangerous.

And too, that is why we should RV, it isn't about cornering the stock market or finding Jimmy Hoffa or any of that.... its about discovering yourself and nurturing the truth in yourself.  I don't see it as an end point, but as a process of personal evolution.  

Motive?  Intent?   The ego, the enemy of RV... is impatient, it is chocked full of MOTIVE.... you gotta keep it in check.... go slow.... be patient with yourself and the process.   I am not saying coast, but go with the process, don't let your ego drag you along.   Uh... I feel a sermon developing here.... gotta go.

admin, somewhere around December 9, 2003

[quote]My question is not if we can RV but why should we? What is our motive?  What is our intent?[/quote]
"Real" psychics remote view for the same reason that real actors act, real writers write, real singers sing: because they eventually realize they cannot survive happily without it.  Sure they can do something else, but they won't be fulfilled without it.  They crave the expression of that aspect of themselves and it becomes an integral part of their life.  

Intents and motives for RV are a dime a dozen, and lots of good intentions abound. But in the end, if a person does enough of it to be any good at it, those intents cease to be of the import they began as, generally, and are eventually replaced by motives more related to personal need for the experience than objective planning for the results of the experience.

My two cents.

PJ

energycritter, somewhere around December 9, 2003

two cents my %#@*&%^$#..... ;)

The self-awareness, self-actualization, self-realization, etc., that is possible through RV can give it value beyond words...the ineffable aspects of personal discovery and developement can make those remarks and rendered internal drivers worth at least three cents or even four....LOL

Only on a few occasions have I actually remarked about any external impersonal drivers associated with my desire to RV, like finding people or finding this, that or the other thing.

I am a loner though, an extreem loner, and it is easy for me to jump into myself and play with RV type stuff for my own gain and be completely happy without having any validation come from the outside or come from a motive that helps others, so to speak.

Not that I am against helping others or having noble motives, but, to me, the personal gain from RV is far more valueable than the other. Besides, I am of the belief that being ready in the instant to do any form of psi fundtioning is a powerful tool that will have great use if a person can develope it through RV and suchlike.

More opertunities will arrise in life for latent psi functioning than will be needed in life because of an organized effort to find something or someone that is missing.

Sure, things need to be found and information needs to be obtained, but, if a person can make these abilities flourish on demand during the actual moment of need, then they will most likely be good at it when and if an organized effort was initiated to find something of great importance and the person in question is available to RV for the solution, so to speak.

I am hoping that I will eventually find an aspect of myself that can spell too.....and maybe an aspect that knows a little bit more about grammar than the apsect/s that presently dominate/s my writing skills or lack thereof.

As humans, we are loaded with stuff inside of us and RV can help us get it out and if we can get it out, then maybe that stuff will be of more daily use than the occasional attempt to find lost stuff for someone else.

Again though, I love the drive to help others and I will always do that when and if the opertunity arrises. I just hope that if the opertunity arrises, I will be able to navigate through myself appropriately so that I truly can be of some help and not just going through the motions, so to speak.

I dunno.....just rambling a bit....I had a minute to post...all done....

wow, sorry, that was longer than I planned....LOL...and I didn't say anything of worth, so, there, my negative two cents worth...meaning, I owe the boards a post that is truly of value, two sents to balance the books....LOL...maybe next time....

waterway, somewhere around December 10, 2003

Okay, just for conversations sake.... say I was "Ming the Merciless", or The Mingster as his friends call him, and I learned to RV.

1. Does learning to RV necessarily or usually lead to "self discovery" and/or spiritual growth?

2. Is morality involved at all?  Can I be really rotten as a person, and really capable as an RVer?  

Anotherdreamer, somewhere around December 10, 2003

As PJ posted…how people do that which is innately natural for them because that talent or self-expression is who they are, so then it seems no judgment of good or bad IS attached to the talent.  Would it matter if a singer has a malevolent heart?    

When I asked the question…What is our motive?  It was because I truly believe that line of thought,” where thought goes energy follows”.  RV validates the psychic phenomenal experience, yet how much validation is enough?  When do we take it to the next level?  And when will we decide on a group human level what our clear goal is?  Will we or are we ready to clearly define it?   I choose harmony over a solo experience. You pick the music.  -)oes anyone get where I am coming from?

energycritter, somewhere around December 10, 2003

I think I understand.....or I maybe not....but, I feel like if I do not do the solo thing, then I am not of much good when trying to harmonize with others....

I dunno....ultimatly I embrace all of the reasons and motives and whatnot.....I guess I get too much of a personal charge out of the internal aspects of the human experience and therefore I tend to be too much of a loner, I guess.....

The flow of energy within me is something that I have grown to be very fond of and it is hard to be the way I am in private while in a public setting, so to speak. I tend to be very reticent and shy when with others, especially when the issue at hand is internal workings of self.

I do not do well with allowing others to be inside of me with me, so to speak and I guess i would shy away from a lot of outward expressed experinces of what is taking place inside of me....probably some ego trouble I have... ;)

I just have to be watchful how much I express with others in general....I can express a lot and that makes me feel self-conscious in an uncomforatble way if what I am expressing is experienced by others....not everyone likes to navigate inside of humanity and search out truth to any aspect of self and whatnot, so, I tend to take the path of least resistance, I guess, and therefore, I end up doing well and enjoying the solo thing more than I should....maybe....I dunno.....I am new to this thing called life, I am still young enough to not know what the hell I am doing anyway.....LOL

energycritter, somewhere around December 10, 2003

[quote]
When I asked the question…What is our motive?  It was because I truly believe that line of thought,” where thought goes energy follows”.  RV validates the psychic phenomenal experience, yet how much validation is enough?  When do we take it to the next level?  And when will we decide on a group human level what our clear goal is?  Will we or are we ready to clearly define it?   I choose harmony over a solo experience. You pick the music.  Does anyone get where I am coming from?
[/quote]

I think I have had so many experiences where the "group" ended up being less clear about anything than the actual individual is capable of. I guess I am very cynical about the ability a group of humans have when it comes down to bringing clarity to any subject. I am not saying that groups have not done things well before, I am just saying that clarity does not always come from a group effort.

Also, the need for psi validation may not be the reason for RV, or private, non-group, RV. I am sure that validation is a part of it for many, but, not all.

In general though, your question is great and maybe there is something that we all as a group need to be focused on. Maybe the idea of instant knowledge is possible and looming on the horizon, or, maybe the ability to telepathicaly comunicate with complete accuracy will be an aspect of it and then the 10-10-220 phone stuff will decrease.....LOL....seriously though, it would be hard to determine what a group would dance well with. Or, simply the idea of knowing all things at anytime for any reason will end up being something achieved.

I dunno, but, it sure is a wonderful part of all of our existences, no matter what we end up doing with it as individuals or a collective.

wizopeva, somewhere around December 10, 2003

Good question.  I'm not an expert at evil, but I'll hazard a guess.  My bet is that rv will uncover instabilities and inconsistancies in a person's psyche.  There may be some people who are basically selfish and what you might call 'evil.'  If they are able to come to terms with that, like perhaps in the case of sociopaths, IMO, they may well be very stable in that personality and be able to view well and not have the psyche search change them to be a nicer person.  

Perhaps we tend to assume that in all cases, self exploration might result in a better human being and that a better human is a more stable human.  But that might be an assumption.  I think instead that most humans that do bad things do not want to think they are doing bad things.  And so they have elaborate defense mechanisms in place to prevent that realization.  I think rv and it's resultant improved communication with the psyche will tend to uncover such self deceptions.  That can be very destablizing.  But there are two routes to take to solve it (other than to stop rving and hide from the prob and hope it goes away).  One way is to stop doing the behavior that is bad and causing the dichotomy.  THe other way is to simply give one's self over to the dark side, so to speak.  Some peole with a lot of darkness in them might opt for way number two.
-E  


[quote]Okay, just for conversations sake.... say I was "Ming the Merciless", or The Mingster as his friends call him, and I learned to RV.

1. Does learning to RV necessarily or usually lead to "self discovery" and/or spiritual growth?

2. Is morality involved at all?  Can I be really rotten as a person, and really capable as an RVer?  [/quote]

Gene_Smith, somewhere around December 10, 2003

[quote]Okay, just for conversations sake.... say I was "Ming the Merciless", or The Mingster as his friends call him, and I learned to RV.

1. Does learning to RV necessarily or usually lead to "self discovery" and/or spiritual growth?

2. Is morality involved at all?  Can I be really rotten as a person, and really capable as an RVer?  [/quote]

I found this an interesting subject so thought I'd toss in my 2 cents to the conversation.

It is my distinct experience that RV does by it's very nature lead to at least some self discovery.  At least to the degree that one needs to begin to better understand how information is delivered, perceived and processed to become a better viewer.  So questions naturally arise, at least they do for me, like why did my subconcious give me that scenario/ picture, description etc as opposed to X scenario, picture, etc.  So yes it would naturally lead to some self discovery.  Would that naturally lead to some self improvement and or spiritual growth; yes for many but not necessarily all.

I view CRV type of viewing as a skill that is learnable by anyone, the most evil included.  Though it is my general observation that things requiring serious, dedicated work, like RV does, are ofttimes avoided by criminal types.  Now where you ask the question "Can I be really rotten as a person, and really capable as an RVer?"  I would point you to the archives of any number of RV related bulletin boards.  There you will find the crystal clear answer is ABSOLUTELY YES.

Gene

admin, somewhere around December 10, 2003

You know the 'batman' signal that the city uses to signal them?  It's this heavy duty search light, and on the front is this template of the bat.  I think of humans-in-bodies as kinda like the template: "suppressing the light" of a larger part of ourselves, or sort of just getting in the way of it fully manifesting here in our reality, like we're a little too dense (no pun intended); light comes through here and there, to varying degrees, as if it's shining through us from the middle.

I see this kind of personal development rather like opening up that template, holes begin to appear, they enlarge, more and more light starts coming through, until eventually one has a sort of 'mesh' effect, and the end result is: a ton more of that powerful light shining through the template (whatever that template may be).

I feel what this does is "intensify" everything we are--for better or worse and usually both.  

So for example, a person may be altruistic, and it may be intensified to the extreme. If the person is also very responsible, and self-aware, this can lead to substantial changes in behavior that most of us would think show they're evolving.  Whether they run off to save the rainforests or initiate a project to field the homeless on christmas in their town, or adopt a 'little brother', or begin spending their extra money to feed the birds and squirrels, or spend more time with their neices and nephews, or even just get much kinder to people, more compassionate, a better listener--there are many ways to express this kind of quality when it grows in someone.

But say this person was also prone to be irresponsible in the way of being careless with the well being of others; egocentric in that regard. That part gets mega-amplified as well.  Say this person was also insecure, which comes with the flip side of vanity, need for flattery and admiration and sense of importance, etc.

Now you end up with someone who mixes their desire to save in with major ego and lack of responsible concern for others.  You get a unique result.  All of those qualities might have been operating in this person prior to their exposure to RV, but at a fairly reasonable level.  Magnify those qualities--in a person whose 'self-awareness' alas does not lead them to improve and change the issues that become more evident within them--and you get someone who's slightly more than half a bubble off and a real pain in the butt.

RV as a topic/field has several of those.

AnotherDreamer wrote:
[quote]Would it matter if a singer has a malevolent heart?[/quote]
I really believe that there is no objective standard on such things, and that it depends on the singer's belief systems, and--dare I say it--the 'True Will' of the individual (a spiritual quality).  In other words, if someone is driven to sing and they genuinely believe that they can and that they will be and deserve to be successful, and if that is in alignment with whatever core energy motivates them, I believe they will be.

I think Madonna--who began a terrible singer with lowbudget music and a big butt--and ended up one of the richest and most famous women on earth (and, thanks to dedication and 2 decades of vocal training, a good singer) is an example of someone who "manifested"... not because they were of loving intent (she's as mercenary as they come, and admits it).  I don't believe it's an accident when someone succeeds to that degree; I believe it was basically her calling; you might say her destiny, but let's not get into the ramifications of that word. :-)

I grew up around the music business and some of the most self-centered, manipulative jerks in the world are exceptionally talented and skilled, including in areas like creativity and exceptional human insight.  I've met poets/lyricists who you would think, reading their stuff, were deep as the sky and O So Wise, and they were shallow drama queens--but they had a gift for "bringing it through".  There is no requirement that someone be 'good' according to our society's definition in order to be good at anything, and I think RV is included in that.

I do think they have to be disciplined, but plenty of traits with negative bents encourage that (such as obsession for example).

[quote]When I asked the question…What is our motive?  It was because I truly believe that line of thought,” where thought goes energy follows”.[/quote]
I agree.  My conscious motive is to better understand myself and to see where this takes me.

[quote]RV validates the psychic phenomenal experience, yet how much validation is enough?[/quote]
I don't think validation is a static thing so much as an ever-ongoing process.  I think, like the term perfection, it implies something that is attained and then unchanging, but within the human mind/heart so to speak, I think 'validation' is part of a path.

[quote]When do we take it to the next level?[/quote]
When we know this one well enough to begin to realize its limits are our own, I imagine.

[quote]And when will we decide on a group human level what our clear goal is?[/quote]
Now that's a question way outside the scope of RV. :-)

[quote]I choose harmony over a solo experience. You pick the music.  -)oes anyone get where I am coming from?[/quote]
I think I might understand.  I don't know that it really matters in the end to anybody except the individual, though.

Sometimes, I choose harmony, and others, I think the world can go to hell in a handbasket if it wants and my own personal evolution is my primary focus.  I do not think that my RV skills, be they good or bad or highly fluctuating alas lol, are dependent on which kind of focus I choose in that regard.

PJ

Anotherdreamer, somewhere around December 12, 2003

PJ: Well, if you are a batman signal you have powerful beam.  Your light reaches through walls; your message opens doors.   You are a beacon warning of dangerous waters. You are much more than a call for help.  But you think I’m stroking your ego.  No, I’m talking about this work that you and those with you have put out here into the “world” at large.  

I’ve been one to hide my light under the barrel so to speak.  I see your courage and I feel empowered to be courageous too.  

I agree that remote viewing is like holding a magnifying glass over not only the target but also facets of our own personalities and egos and fears. And the danger could be a hot spot where that focus lies.  It makes sense to me.  I will admit that I hadn’t thought about it in that “lucid manner” before.  Thank you.

Madonna is an excellent example of what I hoped to say.  Someone only needs desire and confidence to remote view to succeed.  The flavor of ones heart has nothing to do with it.  I think about the crystal ball and it doesn’t matter who looks into it.  A believer will see and a non-believer won’t.

I didn’t mean to imply that validation of remote viewing is “static” or boring or unimportant.  But. Waterway, said that Mr. McMoneagle mentioned that RV is not a toy.  Sometimes when I am doing the online tests, from target junkies or any of the other sites I get the feeling that I am just toying with them. How many direct hits does it take to know that you can do it?  And when you know, then what?  I do not want to hunt criminals or bombs or dig around someone’s head other than my own interesting one of course.  So, I wonder how I can personally use this wonderful tool of RV to the best possible ability?  I then think that it is a “first contact” to the immenseness of us as a group. Do we want to be stuck in a singular I…or moving with grace and beauty among the whole, sharing a healing hopeful message? I agree it doesn’t matter.  I believe that we are exactly right on target. Yet, my human spirit longs to explore all possibilities of the grandest version of the  us we can be.

admin, somewhere around December 12, 2003

Ergh.  Thanks I guess, I'm bad with compliments; I'm a lot more obnoxious than you might imagine, I have to warn you, so don't go thinking I'm some guru lol.  Just another eternal student.

I can't answer all your questions; many questions in RV can only be answered by your own experience and growing self-consideration.

But for example, earlier tonight, I spent some time tuned into my primary target from a few nights ago, encouraging the person, asking for God's blessing on she and her situation.  I figure knowing how she felt is a unique and precious experience I am honored to have; having the opportunity to bring blessing is cool.

Some people have an issue with that based on time; I don't.  She felt on the verge of hopeless that things would change.  I sent her love and told her how she and her fellow suffragettes had succeeded, beyond their dreams in fact, and yes, that apparently one person (she) COULD make a difference, and thanking her for doing so.

The way I see it, all targets are inside me.  So, without any deep discussion on issues of time, even if all of this is merely a relationship with myself, I feel it is still a beneficial practice to 'bring blessing' to targets.  I don't do it during sessions but sometimes after they're over.

I think RV is merely a part of a much larger relationship with yourself and your universe.  How you use it is up to you.  It does not necessarily have to be only in the forms commonly thought of.

PJ

Anotherdreamer, somewhere around December 15, 2003

 :oJust another eternal student…. Perhaps yet I imagine you and the others are aware that your opinions, experiences, acquired knowledge and accessibility put you ahead to the pack. Whether or not you acknowledge your role matters not because there are others following in your footprints.  Funny, how that works.  You may have to turn now and then even back step to find the best route and in doing so may bump into those behind you, but chances are those people will change direction with you and put you back in the lead no matter where you choose to go.  But, don’t worry about me looking for a guru. I’m a wind rider.  I leave no tracks to follow nor do I track too long.  I do enjoy engaging in conversions now and then with other kindred spirits and this board has many familiar souls.  
“
I think RV is merely a part of a much larger relationship with yourself and your universe.  How you use it is up to you.  It does not necessarily have to be only in the forms commonly thought of.”
This must be true. To me Remote View is a modern name to an ageless process of a mind function. Do you agree?  I admit that I am intrigued with the whole idea that it is something that can be drawn out of our self and polished like any talent. When I was a child I questioned “god” not the how of it but the “why” of it.  Why some people and not others? Why messages and visions without two-way connection ???  But, now I think I should have been asking other questions. It is all such an interesting mystery.  You may not answer all my questions but at least I feel you understand them. LOL  :-*

energycritter, somewhere around December 15, 2003

Well put...

To any and all of the/us eternal students....being understood can often be just as good as being answered.... ;)

Yep....many familiar souls....

Following or leading or standing or sitting.....we all support each other as we play, wonder, run, swim, jog, bounce, slide, etc. down the tenthousandroads.

This is good group stuff in action......nothing formal, nothing dificult, just good old sharing, supporting, encourageing and nourishing each other on whatever level is possible and in whatever way is possible....

:)

The_Spook, somewhere around January 5, 2004

I just stumbled across this interesting article that quotes and highlights Mr. McMoneagle, and thought I'd share it, in case others hadn't seen it yet.:

Published on: 2003-12-28

Psychic spies knew of raid

By Henry Cuningham
Military editor


As Delta Force was trying to rescue U.S. hostages in Iran in 1980, a psychic spy monitoring the operation from the United States reported an explosion.

Audio  

Retired Chief Warrant Officer Joseph McMoneagle describes the role of psychics in the 1980 Iran hostage rescue operation (MP3)  


The National Security Council received the report 48 seconds before getting an electronic call about the fatal explosion at the site known as Desert One, said Joseph W. McMoneagle. He started working as a psychic spy in the 1970s.

McMoneagle and Lyn Buchanan, who also worked on the once-secret project, describe the incident in books as "remote viewers." The controversial $20 million CIA-military program was known as the Stargate Project. It ended in 1995.

In a study of the project, Ray Hyman, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Oregon, questioned the reliability of the program's results.

Charlie Rose is a former congressman from Fayetteville who lives in Marshall, Va. He talked to some of the people in the program when he was on the House Intelligence Committee. Rose said a former director of Central Intelligence told him he was not convinced that psychic spying was reliable enough to play a role in military intelligence.

"I don't think our military or intelligence community at this point is spending very much money on any psychic program," Rose said.

McMoneagle, who retired from the Army as a chief warrant officer, wrote about his role in his 2002 book "The Stargate Chronicles." He discussed his experiences during a lecture earlier this month at the Rhine Research Center in Durham.


Practical problems

A psychic trying to gather military intelligence faces some practical problems, he said.

"During the Iran hostage problem, we were revisiting targets for the 100th time," McMoneagle said. "As a psychic, when you are looking at the same problem over and over and over on a daily process, it gets extremely difficult to look at it with an open mind."

Either things don't change, or they change very little, he said.

"We were being asked some pretty critical questions, like, 'Are the guards getting tired? Are they changing their armament? What's different about the room?' The smallest changes could be critical to people engineering hostage retrieval."

The project tried to gather information about Grenada during the U.S. invasion in 1983. It also looked for information on the whereabouts of Manuel Noriega, the deposed leader of Panama, during the 1989 invasion, and the intentions of Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War.

That's according to Buchanan in his 2003 book, "The Seventh Sense: The Secrets of Remote Viewing as Told by a 'Psychic Spy' for the U.S. Military."


Sensitive operations

McMoneagle said planning for the Iran hostage-rescue operation was so sensitive that only a few people knew about it; the psychic spies accidentally became aware of preparations through extrasensory perception, he said.

"It was one of the most sensitive secrets," McMoneagle said. "In our remote viewings, it started to pop up. We started seeing American soldiers stockpiling weapons inside Tehran, to include trucks and munitions and things. We started seeing some of the safe houses."

The psychics reported their findings, and the planners agreed to let them in on the secret, he said.

"They decided since we were already picking up on that they would allow us to continue because we were obviously seeing things ahead of time," McMoneagle said.

"They decided we might in fact see the issues that they did not have resolution for and thereby give them the answers that they lacked."

Psychic spies might get lots of information about a particular situation, but it's not always necessarily what is relevant, he said.

"In the military projects, they would want to know what the agents were doing on the second window over," McMoneagle said. "They would get everything but what the agents were doing. They would get a detailed, perfect picture of this tower. They'd say, 'That's a miss. You didn't tell us what the agents were doing.'"

Military editor Henry Cuningham can be reached at cuninghamh@fayettevillenc.com or 486-3585.

end of messages

[END Topic 81] What is Mr. McMoneagle talking about? TKR Remote Viewing Forum July 2003