Topic [195] intent....again   :( TKR Remote Viewing Forum October 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.

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around October 19, 2003

INTENT.....I know, I know...we've been down this road 10000 times already, (thus the name TKR  :P - like I could have resisted THAT one  ;) )

Lately, I've have a few situations/goals that have presented themselves to me via unexpected happenings and circumstances.  As it turns out, some of these issues are complicated and need lots of thought, timing and insight and I find myself 'working the details' with great intensity.

    I'm finding that the adage of 'where thought goes, energy follows' to be performing beautifully for these issues because some very difficult issues are seemingly falling into place due to proper groundwork (intent). One situation in particular, a highly unusual life changing one, would, it seems to me, to have much negativity attached with it, yet, even these things seem to be working towards an outcome of my 'intentions'.

     A current observation of the power of intent is this:
One of these issues is highly mental at this point...and frankly, involves 'rights/wrongs' depending on a persons value system. So here is the pondering -

    wrong vs intent ~~say I was wanting extra money and decided that robbing the bank or stealing from another person was the way I saw to get what I wanted.  -)o I think robbing a bank is wrong?  Yes, I do.
However, I do all the mental work of creating a plan, a strategy to get me this money.  This is the intent...to get the money.  I pour hours of mental energy into developing these plans...I hone and fine tune until I feel this is going to work...I have covered all the bases and feel confident...but I never put the plan into action. The bank was never robbed nor was any person stolen from.

    In reality, did I rob the bank, commit a wrong...no. I couldn't be arrested for a thing.
    Mentally did I? a big time yes. I could have been arrested for my thoughts  :-[

    So what do we have here??  -)uring all the thinking/planning, my daily life manifested results of my thinking...my intent.  I secretly scanned the internet for bank robbing how to's, I watched TV programs to pick up tips on being a thief, I educated myself in how not to leave follow up clues for the investigators... my heart would pound when thinking of getting caught, I ceased doing certain daily habits so as to make time/room to work on the details, I started buy a new wardrobe as if I already had the money in my possession..(still with me ?  :P )

    In short, while I didn't actually rob the bank, my intent to do so created a physical expression in my life. I mentally was spending the stolen money to accquire 'things'. I found myself mentally enjoying 'those things'...so, in so many ways, it was AS IF I actually did rob the bank.

Back to right vs wrong...for those of you who agree with me that had the bank been robbed , a  'wrong' would have been committed,   mull this one over....was my original 'intent' as wrong...as if I actually had robbed the bank??  .....that mentally, I was just as 'wrong' as if I had physically robbed the bank?? Because the intent was so strong, so deliberate, so focused, didn't I in effect, rob that bank..??  I'm thinking so...that to have all that I've mentioned envolved with intent, that the bank was as good as robbed...the interior damage/rewards had already been internalized by me as if I had done it.  Like thinking about sucking on a lemon...you don't actually have to suck on the lemon to get your mouth to salivate...and yet, it does.

    I just found this concept interesting to think about.....and wondered what you clever minded astute people would offer as opinions ..

yup...I'm hoping flattery will get me some good thinking posted on this   ;-) ;-)   Post away !!  

EricT, somewhere around October 19, 2003

PDPJ

So you are asking about, moral intent, right?  Which, I think is a bit seperate from the concept of mental intent.  

In RV terms, I think of intent as the ability to focus on a single idea for an extended period of time.  For example, a target ID.  

As far as moral intent goes, I think of that as a persons intentions in a given action.  Heres a great example of that-

A guy gets a new rifle.  He creeps up to the edge of a cliff by a waterway, and snipes some unsuspecting victim in a boat.  Victim dies.

OR

A guy gets a new rifle, wants to test it out.  Sets up a target on one end of a cliff, bullet ends up hitting some unsuspecting boater, boater dies.

In each case, a gun was fired, a man dies.  In one case the man has a premeditated murder, the other, just extremely dumb.  

To me, moral intent seperates these two events drastically.  Is that the kind of intent you speak of?


In your case, you contemplated robbing the bank (hypothetically, I hope) but didnt do it.  Er, I would say thats fine... I guess.  Compared to your starting some sort of home business to make money?  Way different.  Was, way different.  We all need cash to live on!  Unless you are running some sort of a con, heh heh.

Your example isnt specific enough for me I guess.  Or maybe I am missing what you are saying entirely, my fault.  Maybe we should seperate intent, and intentions, heh.


Eric

admin, somewhere around October 19, 2003

Religion speaks to this, in several forms. The only one I can recall off the top of my head is the New Testament, where it is said that if a man in his mind commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, then he has as good as done it, as far as his moral clarity goes; it's considered a sin (going against God or Self, depending on how you wish to interpret that word) either way.

I find that when an energy is acting out in my life, it usually is acting out everywhere, in each different place according to its nature.  

The best way to example this is to imagine a bouquet of fractals, as if they are flowers. Each fractal is slightly different, and tends toward green.  Now say you take a certain math pattern, mostly blue, and drop it into each different fractal 'flower'. You have changed the math a little in each, and you will see the difference in them, they will sprout new growing forms based on their own formula (the root), with the new influence of the addition.  

Since the fractals differ in this bouquet, the end-result is a slightly different fractal pattern/color in every case, even though the energy added (the blue pattern) is the same.  So someone looking on might see a bouquet of different forms and not realize that the same energy is manifesting in all these different ways.

If a person for example is thinking about how to 'unfairly' come by money, that's an energy that will going to act out in a variety of ways in their life: the feeling of lack, of pursuit, and of taking something not rightfully one's own by force or cunning.

For example they might find, when they are in this phase, that they are also trying to find "hacks and shortcuts" to taking more time for themselves (e.g., playing on company time), or for getting more or better recognition personally (small comments that make themselves look better or coworkers look worse), or expecting more coming in from a relationship than they want to put out themselves, that sort of thing.  The energy is one, but usually it'll manifest in each area of their life according to that area's nature.

I expect this is why when someone 'deals with' an issue plaguing them, they tend to see results in every area of their life, not just the problem focused on.

I might add that every human has cycles of 'issues' they deal with, and it's no big deal that at some point a person is dealing with issues of their own integrity or whatever--these are things that all mature adults face and cycle through and hopefully come out better for, throughout their lives.  I mean it's a common tendency to act as if one was born True And Just In The Eyes Of God and never varies, LOL, but seriously, for whom is that true?--we are all constantly dredging up parts of ourselves we want to make better.

As far as RV goes, I'm not sure this is actually an RV topic to be honest.  I mean 'intent' is, but you're not using it in that context here.

Concerning your guy-in-boat example, it is certainly the case that consciously, the fellow had no intent to harm another.  But subconsciously, if psi is real and innate, he knew he would kill the guy by accident and did it anyway.  One cannot accept psi as real and yet still pretend that we are ignorant of the future and of the consequences of our actions.  Feel out how someone feels about that statement and you will know how capable they are of genuinely dealing with psi.

I should add that by these same assumptions, I do not believe birth or death ever happen by accident; it is my opinion that the guy in the boat knew he was going to die and arranged to be in that precise spot at that precise moment because for whatever reason, it was his time.  That does not mean it's ok to harm people because on a psychic level they agreed, ok, that'd be  ridiculous; it does however lend some insight into the fact that every person has a part in their experience.

One exercise I learned long ago to use in finding belief systems could probably be used in this case.  I will give you the example that I had then--what little I remember--in the hopes it will model it for you.

1.  I corresponded online a great deal about psycho-spiritual matters.  I took very seriously a sense of 'responsibility' for what I said and how it might affect people, e.g., I would not expose people to stuff I thought was inappropriate for 'where they seemed to be' development-wise.

2.  In order to believe in this, I had to believe that if I wasn't careful, I could cause harm to somebody.

3.  In order to believe that, I had to believe that someone could be exposed and harmed while having no say in their own reality experience at all.  

4.  I also had to believe that people coming in contact with me, rather than maybe being by choice to be exposed to what I knew or was doing, were there by some meaningless accident.

Both 3 and 4 totally violated what I consciously thought I believed.  Also:

5.  In order to believe that a person could be helpless, in a meaningless personal connection, and victimized even accidentally, it means that I had to believe that for all people, and it always comes down to, I had to believe it for ME.  Fear is *always* self-based.

6.  So what I was really believing in order to 'handle with kid gloves' other people -- what arrogance! -- was that *I* was in danger of getting more than I bargained for and being harmed by it.

So just as the sages of old would say, what we believe about the danger to others is always a mirror of what we believe about ourselves.

When I faced that issue head on and meditated on the result of #6, it went away.  Arrogance is always a manifestation of fear, and good riddance.  

From that time on, I began saying what I honestly thought about everything to anybody, feeling that if it got me in trouble, well, there's always some that don't like you, and at least I was being who I was.  

I didn't shy away from telling people stuff that might conflict with their existing belief systems or religion, feeling that if they had chosen to come into contact with me, perhaps it was because they were ready to consider those points of view--maybe to reject and better hold what they had, maybe the opposite, none of my business which, really.

That doesn't mean that I would be irresponsible, e.g., say something I felt would openly harm a person or the field I was talking about.  But it means that I got over the idea that I was any judge whatever of where someone else was and what they were ready for, and instead I tried to consider everybody an opportunity: to feel out what I felt about things, and to make a unique fractal connection that might someday grow into something of value for me.

Anyway you can see that what seemed an innocent, even altruistic behavior was in fact sponsored by fear at the root.  Sometimes belief systems are difficult to see.  So you can break down what's going on inside you in this kind of way: {A} What is the situation, {B} what situations/relations must be in place in order for that to occur, {C} what implications does that have specifically, and then {D} how do those apply if flipped to indicate those implication for yourself.  You can sometimes be really surprised by the outcome!

PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around October 19, 2003

Hi Eric  ;-)

[quote]So you are asking about, moral intent, right?  Which, I think is a bit seperate from the concept of mental intent. [/quote]  and
[quote] Maybe we should seperate intent, and intentions, heh.
[/quote]


    okay...your point is noted on moral vs mental - but the bottom line, as I see intent, as far as energy expenditure, focus and the like are still the same. Energy is energy with out labels.....  it's humans that assign the morality good or bad/ right or wrong.....it's the 'usage of the intent' --the intention- the wanted outcome of the intent, that makes it become a moral or mental situtation depending on a personal value system.
Agreed??

....and no, I never did rob the bank....not clever or needy enough  lol   ;-)  nor do I have the intentions which would evoke the intent    :P



[quote]In RV terms, I think of intent as the ability to focus on a single idea for an extended period of time.  For example, a target ID. [/quote]  

[quote]As far as moral intent goes, I think of that as a persons intentions in a given action.[/quote]

    I'm seeing now where I didn't offer a clear application of my musings towards RVing which is why you felt you needed more information...so...

    for the purpose of applying intent to RVing, how do you see a persons value system influencing any RV results?   Say the target is (blind of course) that of looking into a persons personal life...looking for flaws, secrets etc....  In life, not as an RV target, this is something that would be morally against your personal values, therefore, you wouldn't do it...invade someone's privacy like that, but as a blind target, does the morality factor matter??  would your personal code of ethics disallow accurate data?  Let's get back to the bank...as a blind target...what is being looked for are ways of gaining enterance into the bank, for locations of the valuables and so on....if in real life you wouldn't do this, would you be able to RV the information??  

     -)oes this make it a bit more clear??

However...you raised an interesting point about intent vs intentions....as an aside, what about this.??? What opinions do you have as far as if the intent was the intention of robbing a bank and even though you didn't actually do it but went through the process as I described in my first posting along with all the physical reactions, on a cellular level, did you rob the bank or not?  

omg....are your eyes as scrambled as mine are after all that?? 8)

and if this still isn't clear enough, let me know and I'll muddy the waters a bit more.... ;-)

pdPJ doing the happy dance without a clue as to why!...  but happy none the less ;-)

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around October 19, 2003

Excellent PJ!   I knew you would hit the nail with the hammer!   ;-)

You picked up on one aspect and Eric another...this is good.

I'd comment more, and will later, but have been having a lot of pc issues lately and now am having problems staying on line...phone company coming tomorrow to check out my lines....

will get back to you on this though...

waterway, somewhere around October 20, 2003

PJ,

Being honest with folks like you described reminded me of a book I read a few years ago by a guy named Brad Blanton, I think.... it was called "Radical Honesty".   Have you seen it?

admin, somewhere around October 22, 2003

No, I haven't.  That's a funny title.  Reminds me of when I was in high school and an old lady at the public library asked me what kind of books I liked best on the paperback racks. "Smut!" I happily replied, then realized by the look on her face that honesty is not always the best policy.  ;-)

PJ

waterway, somewhere around October 23, 2003

Well basically Mr. Blanton explains that unless you are 100% honest, you are an emotionally crippled person living in fear.  Whew... okay, I am paraphrasing.  But he is asking a lot.  

Most people do not react well to complete honesty... especially if you have been quiet about some of your feelings and opinions since the beginning of your relationship.  So warn people .

Its a fascinating read.  I agree with most of what he says, but I don't have the backbone to do it.  

admin, somewhere around October 23, 2003

There is a book called 'The Four Agreements' that friends sent me for Christmas a couple years ago, a simplified version of part of Toltec philosophy.  

Though written very simply for the proletariat, it is not insulting, just simple.

It points out that we make agreements with ourselves and culture when we are too young to be doing so with conscious awareness, and gives four 'agreements' that we can choose to make with ourselves now, and act on, on a daily basis.  

The words of the agreements aren't all; you gotta read the implications and explanation he gives for a larger vision of what each means and entails.

So I decided hey, I am already honest with myself and others for the most part--it is usually only occasional politics that interferes with that (and I am often WRONG, but not dishonest)--I figured I would make a conscious effort every day to uphold the Four Agreements.

On my first day I managed to violate all four of them within about an hour of getting out of bed.  It went downhill from there, LOL.

There's just so much stuff that unless you are being really highly aware of what you're doing and then right after, of what you've done and your motives and the subtleties, you just don't see what is really involved.

I like the book and sometimes keep it in my backpack, when I'm spending a lot of time with it like in summer when I'm often taking Ry places, to re-read.  I recommend it.  You can find it in any bookstore or online.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around October 23, 2003

It sounds like a winner, I will check it out.  

What is the quote "All people are born free, but everywhere they are in chains"?  We learn to live in comfortable lies early on, it takes real will or shocking tragedy to change that.

Blanton says that we have to completely open, and stay with the people we are open with until they have had the chance to be completely open with us.  And we can be wrong, so we need to stay there to be corrected.  

Benton, somewhere around January 11, 2005

That Waterway, what a card.

Hey, you viewers get your hineys over to [url]http://www.tenthousandroads.com/wbbs/WBB.cgi?board=galleries1;action=display;num=1105399810[/url] for to provide a hearty discussion of intent, please.

larrywojo, somewhere around January 11, 2005

Say, there Polka-baby...

Gotta admit I didn't invest alot of time reading replies, on account of a rather ironic personal-experience-skillset on the subject.

I robbed a bank once. (So did two of my friends - one, the same bank a few years later; the other, a completely different one [and he got away clean... the first one's probably still in Attica for all I know]).

Now, to be technically correct, I didn't "Stickup" the bank like you see in the movies. I was part of a gang passing bad checks, and if its any consolation, I was only 15 at the time. But I/We had accrued a tidy sum over several months (restitution in full made, btw), and my cache on hand at the time of arrest put me into Felony territory. (although I was also arrested once previously for being in the getaway car of a botched, much more 'classic', Stickup).

My point about the technicalities? The armed and VERY serious policemen answering the silent alarm didn't know that it wasn't a classic "Stickup" ( a new teller panicked and tripped the alarm after seeing a 'wanted poster' that'd been distributed at all teller stations with my picture). I almost got shot when reacting a little too quickly upon their arrival, and a phalanx of cops with guns in hand gives a whole new meaning to the word "target".

What I'm trying to say is that I was almost the exact opposite of what your model laid out. I wasn't "Sticking Up" the bank, but was treated as if I were.

All your thoughts are yours and yours alone. I once saw a special on pedophilia, where a father was having incestuous thoughts about his daughter, even 'peeping' at her after she bathed, and pleasuring himself. At that time, I'd have said "string him up". The professional psychologist moderating the program thought otherwise. I would have to say in the final analysis, that now, I even agree with that professional due to the father's forebearance of action.

All of us at one time or another are tortured by our own mental demons, and all I can say is if we are to judge even ourselves by my previous disposition, then... "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (and I'm NOT religious).

If you need someone to whip your hiney, hire a professional. Like me. I'll open up TWO cans o' whupass on ya. But in the meantime, give yourself a break.

Polka dot Pajammies - what a cool name. What'd they call you in kindergarten?

Be cool,
larrywojo

P.S. It also deserves saying that I didn't HAVE to say anything about this, because as a juvenile, I received only a slap on the wrist, and the records were sealed (even after a most disgraceful performance towards the judge on my part that actually resulted in an immediate termination of proceedings and leniency). YOUR society is alot more forgiving than you think. Go with the flow, toots. ::)

Benton, somewhere around January 31, 2005

So, if time does not matter..... should the intent happen during session, or at feedback, or in my car on the way to work....?

I've been reading intently.... :P.... the discussion over on the Stargate forum, regarding intent.  A lot of great info was bandied about, but I have more questions, ones I want to address here.

Now, in my humble mind, I believe its not target feedback that is the issue, but "[color=Red]the session as an event[/color]" that is important.  I don't think specific target data is necessary, but positive, joyful feedback about the session is the energy that drives the RV data to the viewer. PJ noted that we may be viewing for validation, that is pretty much what I mean here.   But I could be wrong...

With that in mind... where is the intention occurring?

Just4fun, somewhere around January 31, 2005

For me, as viewer as well as in other endevors, it seems my intent stems from want/need/desire of accquisition of information....this is on an individual basis. Taken to the bare bones of primal, seems like this could all stem from need to survive which would encompass fears/ego.   hmmmmm

Having to do with targets, I suppose a taskers source of intent would also need to be factored in.

Good question Benton.

Benton, somewhere around January 31, 2005

Please correct me if I am wrong, but in the RV community there is the belief that [color=Blue]Intent [/color] is extremely important in getting RV data.  The intent involves the focused attention on getting data from a session, from being successful in our session in reporting target data.  We must strongly intend to get info, and if we intend strong enough, we get data.  

But, if I don't get correct data, then does that show that my intent was weak?  Was I a slacker?  I think that is a stretch.  Perhaps intend doesn't mean we will always get data, but it sure improves the chances, given all other factors being equal.  

I think its the successful out come of the PSI event, the moment we look at the feedback and say "Yeah!" that creates successful RV.  That is why the task must be clear, and the INTENT clear on the task, because if we are veiwing for validation, we must VALIDATE correctly.  Your joyful moment must come from viewing correct info, not from getting a few correct things, or something similar, or the shiney doorknob or whatever.  

See what I mean?

Just4fun, somewhere around January 31, 2005

[quote]  
But, if I don't get correct data, then does that show that my intent was weak?  Was I a slacker?  [/quote]

At what point do you determine the data was wrong?...could have been correct data but misinterrpreted/translated by you.

[quote] Your joyful moment must come from viewing correct info, not from getting a few correct things, or something similar, or the shiney doorknob or whatever.   [/quote]

Sure, we all want to have wonderful hits each and every time...but it doesn't happen that way for us mere mortals, but certainly something to aspire to.

When you think about what you have to start with, a meaningless coordinate number, and then apply descriptors to that number and have them actually pan out and mean something is just short of amazing considering all the possible variables a person could come up with. This would be joyful encouragement right  ;-) , but agreed, not the Eureka Joy of a full blown hit  ;-)  (would that be like a hole in one? )

added:
I was doing todays mission target and needed a break due to not having many 'joyful' data moments  ;-). My break was to read the boards to clear my mind (an oxymoron?  :P ) Is it your intention that this mission target drive me batty?...  cuz it's working .....

removed part of previous post as it clearly was a stupid response to your comment  ;-), I am allowing the other stupid things I said to remain   (some days are just like that ...this bes one of them for me )

admin, somewhere around February 3, 2005

Benton wrote,

[quote] Now, in my humble mind, I believe its not target feedback that is the issue, but "the session as an event" that is important.[/quote]
Then he wrote:
[quote]I think its the successful out come of the PSI event, the moment we look at the feedback and say "Yeah!" that creates successful RV. [/quote]
I love to argue, but how can I do it when you hold every point of view? ;-)

If time does not "really" exist, then what if the event, and the feedback, are inextricably interwoven?  Just because we are capable of keeping things in linear memory as 'separate' does not mean they are.

PJ

Benton, somewhere around February 3, 2005

PJ noted,
[quote]I love to argue, but how can I do it when you hold every point of view? [/quote]

Are you saying I contradict myself?  If it seems that way, it is simply because I did not make my explaination clearly understood, and for that mis-step I apologize.  

Let me try again.... keeping in mind two things. 1) I don't clearly and completely understand the process I am trying to explain myself... and 2) I think the process we are talking about is more complicated than we usally see it as (if that is POSSIBLE).

From what I have read, the normal explaination for how RV works is that the viewer gets info, and then later is made aware of the intended target the session was done to get info on.  Most believe the info given at feedback CAUSES the viewer to get RV info IN THE PAST during the session.  If the feedback shows a red car, then that info traveled back in time and the RVer saw a red car during their session.  But I don't think it works like that.  

That is why I said:
[quote]Now, in my humble mind, I believe its not target feedback that is the issue, but "the session as an event" that is important.[/quote]

What I mean by "Session as an event" is the total interpersonal relationship that develops from the time the viewer, monitor, experimenter, drinking buddies, and/or interviewer 3 years later get together and start the experiment with a successful RV outcome.  

I think the subconscious has an agenda of interpersonal interaction and relationship development. IF a successful RV session would facilitate that, then successful RV session will occur.  

A successful RV session, one where I say "I see a red car" and the feedback shows a red car, will occur if that successful event causes us to grow closer in a way other factors could not have.  If we grow close and progress together to fulfill our subconscious' agenda without successful RV, then there is no need for successful RV to occur, so it will not.

That is why I said:
[quote] think its the successful out come of the PSI event, the moment we look at the feedback and say "Yeah!" that creates successful RV. [/quote]

RV success is not caused by target feedback.  There are  hundreds of statements by successful RVers who state they NEVER got any target feedback and were successful.  What they did get.. or the social feedback they got... was interpersonal praise, a pat on the back, a big grin from Ingo, etc.  It is the interpersonal feedback that is the key, and that comes from the whole RV event, from signing up for the experiment in the post-doc student's office, to the radio show interview 20 years later.  

Its not the targe feedback that is important, but how important the whole event of being successful in RV is.  Its the whole feedback experience that includes the people, the social dynamics, the joy and fun of success, etc, that are the energy of RV.

That is why RV needs to be fun.
That is why RV needs to have strong intent, it has to be IMPORTANT so the social interaction will be stronger and more dynamic.
That is why RV does so well in a group.
That is why so many PSI experiments are just BARELY statistically significant... they ONLY need to be significant.
That is why extroverts test better on PSI skills, cuz extroverts get more from social interaction.
That is why the first timer effect occurs, cuz early success is more important.  Once the importance wears off... so does success.  And once you have been successful, the social ties and communication has been established so successful RV is less important.  But it can become more important IF you make it that way with increased intent and setting aside more time to practice.

I could go on and on (and often do), but I hope this repetitious explanation eliminates some of the perceived contradictions of my earlier statement.   ::)  Perhaps, in time, I may even understand it myself.....[size=1]Hey, it could happen...[/size]

Glyn, somewhere around February 3, 2005

Hi Benton,

Yes, it is *all* part of the feedback. It all enters the memory, reinforces the whole thing. I absolutely agree, it is not just the target feedback it may encompass everything that a viewer experiences which the mind associates with a session (linked via the ID/tag/coord/intent/whatever)..ever.

BTW can you tell me about some of these hundreds of statements by people knowing absolutely they got hits without getting any feedback and knowing they will never get any.. ever. Not just anecdotal, it would have to be verified of course. I would be really really interested in knowing the details re some of them..because of my interest in FM theory.

I'm not doubting or making fun here.. I would really like to know, but unverified statements, as you will realise, are not enough...not because people don't tell the truth, but that they could be overlooking something. We need to do 'good science' if we want to find out how RV really works.

Regards,
Glyn

Benton, somewhere around February 4, 2005

Glyn penned:
[quote]can you tell me about some of these hundreds of statements by people knowing absolutely they got hits without getting any feedback and knowing they will never get any.. ever[/quote]

Whoa Glyn, I just made that statement up to support my arguement!  I never expected anyone to want documentation!   ::)

Hehehee.... okay, I just made that last part up... I have ALWAYS wanted to say that....

..but as for page numbers and such on viewers getting correct sessions without ever getting site feedback... Paul Smith mentions it in his book.  I WANT to say (since it supports my statement) that Joe McMoneagle, Ingo Swann and maybe Skip Atwater all make the same claim.  That is, they say they were told their sessions were accurate, but they were never told what the actual target was, shown pictures, given a name, etc.  I don't know if I am correct in quoting those last three guys cuz I have not opened up their books in a few years/months, but I know Mr. Smith 's book isn't the first time I've heard it.  

I tell ya... once I get this Rhine Center Joe McMoneagle thing, and Mr. Smith's online book party done... I am gonna finish reading Dunne's book, which I am 1/3 into already.  I gotta get that other book youz guys keep mentioning but its outta print here.  

Again, I don't think its the target feedback that is important, across time even.  Its the impact on your life that the "whole event" gets, whether you see target feedback or not, that causes the event.  Its the "warm fuzzies" you get because of the event, whether the event was accompanied with target feedback or NOT, that causes the event.  

Okay.... I have had a lot of coffee... so I am going to venture further out on the limb here...

The subconscious mind, like the waking/ego/conscious mind, is put there by millions of years of evolution with improved reproductive potential as a driving force.  So it wants to create relationships which are darn useful in reproduction... but since it cannot control as strongly the goal planning and the physical body as the ego/waking consciousness can... it has to use what it can to help the DNA along, and once of those things is PSI!  So when the conscious mind is unable do what what needs to be done... the subconscious steps in with a miracle.  

Whew... there.. I said it... now, to get more coffee...

Glyn, somewhere around February 5, 2005

Hi again Benton,

[quote]Hehehee.... okay, I just made that last part up... I have ALWAYS wanted to say that.... [/quote]

;-)  I had a teensy inkling that may have been the case..but I do get your point though, there *have* been accounts of successful RV without feedback...Pat Price's being the most famous. However anyone looking seriously into the possibility that RV may be precognition which could be based on information obtained from our own minds in the future would want to delve a heck of a lot deeper in order to eliminate FM from their enquiries..as far as they were able.

I don't know if FM theory was looked at seriously in anything that the military guys we all know of were associated with, but Sean O'Donnell ((wrote 'Future Memory and Time (a new skill of mind)'), was talking about it way back in the early 70s so the idea definitely hadn't died the death since J W Dunne.

I think to get my own point across and show that we are in the same ballpark I need to drop the term target feedback and replace it with something like session related experience. Say I task you with Machu Pichu. You take the ID/coords/tag/ and start doing your session. It is your intent to obtain information that is not already in your memory banks. You have psychologically given yourself 'permission to be psychic' (a good term..can't remember who coined it), so your mind sees what it can find in your future memory banks. This is all speculation of course..I am not one of those who say 'I know' (there are plenty of those about already  :)).

Maybe we somehow hop skip and jump forward in linear time. We will still be 'remembering' the past...it's just that we are no longer in the present as we know it...we are in another 'present'...a very unstable shifting one (which is why focus is important IMO).. remembering the past from that point. Being 'psychic' is difficult. One of the myriad reasons it could be difficult is that there are so many future memories out there that will be associated with the session you are doing, consciously and *subconsciously*...strong ones, weak ones, confused ones, distorted ones, speculation, imagination....and also you will have all the information already in your memory banks before you did the session too, and also memories formed *during* the session. All this will still be there in the future. How strongly depends on whether the memory itself has some kind of impact and 'stands out' (Sean O'Donnell spoke about memory 'peaks')...but perhaps mostly just down to how good a memory you have. (For instance intel people and detectives would probably have very good memories).

Yes, I agree with you...it is the whole experience. But what if you never get to know that the session was about Machu Pichu? Your tasker adamantly refuses to give you feedback. Well you could come across it in a file-drawer 40 years from now, or maybe someone tells you that you did really good, so you have a 'warm and fuzzy' about it...and you know their interests so you just begin to wonder! Maybe you get some information  one day  that you don't recognise at a conscious level is about your task, but your sub may make that connection...we may be dealing with subconscious memories too...anything that gets into the memory banks...and we all know what a hypnotist can dredge up (even false memories...but we don't want to get into that).

What I'm getting at Benton is that to eliminate the possibility of future memory having a hand in 'psi'.....may be very hard to do....just because like you said, it is not just the target feedback...it is the *whole experience* .

[quote]The subconscious mind, like the waking/ego/conscious mind, is put there by millions of years of evolution with improved reproductive potential as a driving force.  So it wants to create relationships which are darn useful in reproduction... but since it cannot control as strongly the goal planning and the physical body as the ego/waking consciousness can... it has to use what it can to help the DNA along, and once of those things is PSI!  So when the conscious mind is unable do what what needs to be done... the subconscious steps in with a miracle. [/quote]

I just knew sex would get into it eventually.  ;-) ;-)

Grins,
Glyn

admin, somewhere around February 5, 2005

Hey wait, now you have my attention Glyn. ;-)

In case you don't know, research on doing viewing with no feedback EVER -- literally, they waited until the person DIED to open the feedback, so nobody knew the result until then -- has shown that it doesn't matter.

So the feedback issue is either (a) only part of the equation, or (b) extends to information obtained after death or something.

PJ

Glyn, somewhere around February 5, 2005

Hi PJ,

[quote]In case you don't know, research on doing viewing with no feedback EVER -- literally, they waited until the person DIED to open the feedback, so nobody knew the result until then -- has shown that it doesn't matter.[/quote]

Wow! They must be really sure. Very interesting PJ. Tell me more.

If they (whoever they are) are holding their experiment (was it a deliberate experiment or a tragic occurance?), up as definite evidence that feedback does not matter in RV then hopefully they were extremely rigorous in their procedures, followed scientific method, observed the same results on more than one occasion, and have written the results up in full for peer review. If so they would probably be happy for others to see the full session(s) and  details of the target(s) at least. Do you know where details can be found PJ?

[quote]So the feedback issue is either (a) only part of the equation, or (b) extends to information obtained after death or something. [/quote]

I think I've mentioned before that Dunne thought (b) may be possible because of his theory of how time works. That still allows for (a) of course.

If it is a question of getting the information from our own minds further along our own linear timeline, then feedback would be necessary so that our future minds hold the information in the first place. However, if we have to go 'across' time to get it, say from the mind of another 'self' in another timeline, as Dunne thought...then feedback would not be necessary for us ( though I guess it would be for the 'self' we are getting it from...).  

Of course it may not be FM at all PJ...I say again that I am perfectly prepared to accept that, but I am one of those annoying people who needs more than the account of an experiment or two before ditching a perfectly good theory.  ;-)

PJ, would it be possible to move my long mail and these last ones over to the 'Future Memory and RV' thread? I don't think this discussion really belongs here...and it keeps my FM ramblings all in one place anyway. :).

Grins,
Glyn

admin, somewhere around February 5, 2005

Sorry, I can't do that Glyn, the software only gives me the option to move a whole thread, not an individual message.

The experiments were done on purpose, with more than one person (such as Pat Price I recall being one of them, but I'm told they have stuff on Joe too, though he's still alive so it's not revealed). They were done by physicist Ed May and his team at the CSLabs during the StarGate project.

It's just one of a million fascinating things that provided information for the funder but to my knowledge did not end up with a whole formal white paper published on the topic.

I can't even count the things like this that happen to have come up over the years when I was asking or talking about something, yet I don't recall seeing them formally published. Many times this is because it's detail, and many times this is because although there is clear indication of something, that thing was never then studied on its own as the focus. Or sometimes there simply was no way to replicate it. (For example... hypothetically "of course" :-).... you can do a TK study, and have your 'surgical steel medical instrument hermetically sealed in a glass container', and in the attempts to see if it bends, have it utterly vanish. But if you can't replicate it and you're a serious scientist, you aren't saying a word about that!  What science finds valid and worth documenting is not what laymen do.)

I do know that May had a slew of stuff 'waiting' for him to get around to publishing it, no hurry, no priority, when he wasn't so busy--and then suddenly the program ended and that's it, it never got published.

I have pleaded with him to make the effort but the problem is he works for a living and it is a ton of work to collect all the right paper from that period (which he has) and put it together and publish it.  He's insanely busy and travels a lot. At this point, there isn't really anything in it for him frankly, he isn't getting paid for the time it would take, and there are other factors.

Like, in some cases, the work he did then was a foundation for various experimental forms he's used in the lab since. So the original stuff may be sort of old news. He may or may not have permission to publish what he's learned since. But anyone would be understandably reluctant to publish incomplete knowledge from way-back without being able to say for example that they've learned better since (or learned what factor caused that result or whatever).

The vast majority of everything 'learned' is in the details. But white papers are usually only published on rather major things. Now in industries where there's lots of funding and tons of journals, the most piddly details and replications are published, but in parapsychology when someone like him was busy, I think they mostly published the stuff they felt had the most importance to the field at large and other researchers.

PJ

Glyn, somewhere around February 5, 2005

Hi PJ,

[quote]Sorry, I can't do that Glyn, the software only gives me the option to move a whole thread, not an individual message.[/quote]

No problem PJ  :)

[quote]I do know that May had a slew of stuff 'waiting' for him to get around to publishing it, no hurry, no priority, when he wasn't so busy--and then suddenly the program ended and that's it, it never got published.
I have pleaded with him to make the effort but the problem is he works for a living and it is a ton of work to collect all the right paper from that period (which he has) and put it together and publish it.  He's insanely busy and travels a lot. At this point, there isn't really anything in it for him frankly, he isn't getting paid for the time it would take, and there are other factors. [/quote]

That's a shame, there must be lots of interesting stuff that they have experienced over the years that may never reach the likes of us, either because of lack of time/money/inclination, or as you said he may not have permission to publish.

[quote]The vast majority of everything 'learned' is in the details. But white papers are usually only published on rather major things. Now in industries where there's lots of funding and tons of journals, the most piddly details and replications are published, but in parapsychology when someone like him was busy, I think they mostly published the stuff they felt had the most importance to the field at large and other researchers.[/quote]

Ah.. Sorry to be picky PJ, but when you said...
[quote]In case you don't know, research on doing viewing with no feedback EVER -- literally, they waited until the person DIED to open the feedback, so nobody knew the result until then -- has shown that it doesn't matter [/quote].
....nothing has been shown to have been shown at all... and  if it has they ain't showing anyone (?)  ;-)  

This finding (if substantiated) would be central to whether future memory theory may or may not hold water.  The experimentors may not give FM theory any weight, but there are ramifications for the whole field of psi. Does precognition require that the 'precognitor' (that may or may not be a word   ;)), get some sort of validation? Does it matter? No, I have a feeling  it would not be considered unimportant at all. However, there is no way in a million years that the rest of us should accept such observations on faith alone...we've moved a bit further along than that; I hope.

:)
Glyn

admin, somewhere around February 6, 2005

Hi Glyn,

Actually these researchers are probably the most likely to be open to FM, given that's JM's lab and he's published his views which are pretty much of the FM sort--since he's been so into the science so long, I assume nothing has invalidated that theory or he wouldn't be so fond of it. ;-)  

I think it'd be an assumption that it being true (that a viewer can be psi and accurate even with "no feedback ever") would invalidate the Future Memory theory. It may simply be that the time and our perception in this regard is a bigger subject than we yet have a handle on.

I agree by the way that until something is published for peer review it isn't fully qualified as published science.

This topic has some small abysses as well though. As one example, let us say Viewer A does a session. No feedback ever, I mean ever, and they die. Is there any way to prove that the viewer didn't have an eventual 'assumption they probably were accurate' and that this did not function as a form of feedback?

Certainly a viewer's thoughts CAN function as feedback, I've seen that in my own stuff (one reason why one should never do 'local' targets where you look at the feedback via looking at the address or description on paper, which you will visit 'later', rather than having someone take you or visiting it right then).

I think it's clear to any viewer that feedback and the future "can"--and with most viewers, do--influence a session. The problem is that even if FM is itself legit, there are so many variables, and results do not seem to modulate by FM that is easily measured. What I mean is, say that we each do 100 RV sessions, to be simple we'll say on practice targets with photo feedback. Well, you do enough and all the variables like health and focus and that sort of thing start to average out. We got feedback on all of them. Why do so well on some, so poorly on others? If you could dependably modulate the success of an RV session based on feedback, then you could show that the feedback experience is implicit to the result.

Which by the way has been shown, in some respects, but sort of from the back end you might say. May et al.'s study on Shannon entropy (this using 'rate of change' in photo feedback targets) suggested to them that targets had some implicit quality that mattered; however, that particular research in my opinion is incomplete, since there is no controlling for the issue that the viewers got feedback in all the trials--which to me means they cannot really have separated what may be (a) a target property, (b) a photograph property, or (c) an "impact-upon-viewer-of-feedback" property, and all three of those things may be different.

If future memory is what matters, say we do a target on a pocketwatch's gears. After feedback, might it 'change reality' if we took apart a pocketwatch and got intimately familiar with its guts, so we had a firsthand, physical, experiential library for data? We'd have no way of knowing, of course, since if we changed the past... well let's not go there, that is mind scrambling. ;-)

PJ

Glyn, somewhere around February 6, 2005

Hi PJ,
[quote]Actually these researchers are probably the most likely to be open to FM, given that's JM's lab and he's published his views which are pretty much of the FM sort--since he's been so into the science so long, I assume nothing has invalidated that theory or he wouldn't be so fond of it. [/quote]
Ah, that's good news.  ;-) 
[quote]I think it'd be an assumption that it being true (that a viewer can be psi and accurate even with "no feedback ever") would invalidate the Future Memory theory. It may simply be that the time and our perception in this regard is a bigger subject than we yet have a handle on.[/quote]
You are probably right PJ. When we find out how psi works it will either be beautifully simple or fiendishly complex..but I have a feeling we won't be finding out any day soon  :).
[quote]This topic has some small abysses as well though. As one example, let us say Viewer A does a session. No feedback ever, I mean ever, and they die. Is there any way to prove that the viewer didn't have an eventual 'assumption they probably were accurate' and that this did not function as a form of feedback? [/quote]
Absolutely! That is the sort of thing Benton was saying (I think), and what I was trying to get at in my long mail a few back.
[quote]I think it's clear to any viewer that feedback and the future "can"--and with most viewers, do--influence a session. The problem is that even if FM is itself legit, there are so many variables, and results do not seem to modulate by FM that is easily measured. What I mean is, say that we each do 100 RV sessions, to be simple we'll say on practice targets with photo feedback. Well, you do enough and all the variables like health and focus and that sort of thing start to average out. We got feedback on all of them. Why do so well on some, so poorly on others? If you could dependably modulate the success of an RV session based on feedback, then you could show that the feedback experience is implicit to the result.[/quote]
Heck, I wish I knew the answer to that one PJ. If it is memory then it will be subject to the same problems that we have in day to day life when we try to remember something, but far worse. If we somehow move the 'point of presence' of part of ourselves forward in time so we can access our minds/memories from that new temporary vantage point then what we have found interesting will stand out more...it's the same with memories we access from our more usual day to day point of presence (point of present  ;)).

I have often heard people say that it's what the sub finds interesting that matters, and how the sub is so capricious. IMO it is what our conscious minds find interesting which determines the strength of a memory (most of the time),...and if we are trying to access that memory and it is weak then we may get vague confused information; or nothing at all.

[quote]If future memory is what matters, say we do a target on a pocketwatch's gears. After feedback, might it 'change reality' if we took apart a pocketwatch and got intimately familiar with its guts, so we had a firsthand, physical, experiential library for data? We'd have no way of knowing, of course, since if we changed the past... well let's not go there, that is mind scrambling. ;-)[/quote]

That fits very well with FM theory actually PJ  :). The laying down of memories linked to the RV event (tasking) will not end with the intended feedback, but potentially will include any and everything our mind links with the task, ever...so it can all be available back there in the past when we do our session...whether we find it or not and if we find it whether we can interpret or not...is an entirely different matter.  So if we take apart the pocketwatch and look at its innards then we are not changing anything..this is an experience which which we may, or may not, already have accessed from the past. That's how so-called retrotasking works I think. Although we may think we are doing it deliberately if we are able to access it from the past it *always was* going happen. We don't change the past, we only think we do. Do you see what I mean?

The thing is though PJ....if that is all there is to it then is our cherished notion of freewill just an illusion? Hopefully, as you say, there is more to it.

Gotta go to bed. Goodnight from the UK :-)
Glyn

end of messages

[END Topic 195] intent....again   :( TKR Remote Viewing Forum October 2003