Topic [176] Future Memory and RV TKR Remote Viewing Forum September 2003

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

Glyn, somewhere around September 15, 2003

Hello all,

Some of you will know that I am interested in J W Dunne's theory about Future Memory. His book "An Experiment with Time" is advertised on this site. No, I'm not getting paid to advertise  ;-).

RV (IMO) appears to be precognition, based on the feedback and other 'happenings' around feedback time, and  FM may well be the means by which this functions....or if not sole, then at least plays a part. However, I am not closed to the notion that whatever is behind psi-perception may not be FM whatsoever....but just appear to be.  None of my ideas are set in stone. The idea of a zero point field interests me too, and if we can get access to our memories of the future, then that may even play a part. This sort of thinking is what I want to explore.

I've gone on about FM now and again on quite a few email lists..not that anyone takes a lot of notice though.... so I figured (I don't give up easily), that I may as well drone on about it here too  ;-).  If it's in one place then those who are not interested can ignore at their leisure.

Anyway, I thought I'd start this thread mainly so I can put down my thoughts on FM from time to time (excuse the pun). With a bit of luck though some others may contribute their own thoughts  too; polite ones only please  :-*

For starters my next mail is an overview of what FM is all about.

Kind regards,
Glyn

Glyn, somewhere around September 15, 2003

FUTURE MEMORY

Well I first became interested in this when I read Dunne's "An Experiment With Time" in the early seventies. My edition of his book says that the first publication of his theory was in 1927. He was the first to come up with the idea, but there have been others who have published books with similar themes (maybe some based on his original concept) over the last decade or so. Dunne’s theory is of the nature of time itself. Rather than it being linear (running past to future) he thought time was serial (and overlapping), and this in turn explains why things such as premonition are possible....even premonitions of times far beyond the death of the 'seer'. So, the the old ‘Pat Price Rved something beyond the time of his death so FM can’t apply’…chestnut could be explained (in the terms of the Dunne’s theory that is. You'll need to read the book if interested, because I am ashamed to admit that I find it complicated to understand let alone explain…but it is the concept of FM itself that intrigues me, and 'rings a bell' :-).

The best illustration I have ever heard of Future Memory at work is from Dunne's book itself. It's a bit long, so I will use my own words to paraphrase. He talks about a dream, but could just as well be talking about RV (especially ERV).

One night in 1902 Dunne had a dream. He seemed to be standing on a high mountain. There were little fissures giving off jets of vapour spouting upwards. In his dream he recognised the place as an island of which he had dreamed before, an island in imminent peril from a volcano. He suddenly realised that it was going to blow up!

He was seized by a desire to rescue the FOUR THOUSAND (the number was in his mind) unsuspecting inhabitants. He had to get them off in ships, and there followed a nightmare which consisted of his efforts trying to persuade authorities to despatch vessels to do so….and he was thwarted at each turn. Throughout the dream the number of people in danger (4000) absolutely obsessed him, and he repeated it to everyone he met (in the dream), and as he awoke he found he was even shouting out about the four thousand people that he had to rescue.

Some  time later (after the night of the dream..he's not sure how long), he sees a copy of the 'Daily Telegraph', which reported a major volcano disaster in Martinique. Ships were involved in rescuing the inhabitants, and it was stated that  there was a loss of FOUR THOUSAND lives. Later copies reported revised figures, but Dunne was proud of his prophetic dream, it fitted so well, even (especially) the figure of 4000.  He was pleased with himself…….that is until one day in the future when he was copying out the original paragraph from the newspaper (perhaps for some of his research, although he doesn't say), and realised to his dismay that the figure first reported in the newspaper was FORTY THOUSAND.....he had misread it. However…that moment didn't come until *fifteen years*  after the event!!

OK......he had believed the newspaper article had said 'four thousand' for 15 years!  He was upset (understandably so),because his ' prophetic' dream was now wrong in it's most important aspect. He got to thinking however….where then did he get the four thousand in his dream? Why was it so important; have so much significance? He eventually came to an idea...........he came to believe that his dream of the future was not of the island, not of the event itself......but of  the newspaper article he first saw.....and not only that either. It appeared that he had had dreamed  of his *memory* of reading the article; which included his mistake of misreading the number as 4,000!

He had accessed his 'future memory'. Simple eh?
 
Maybe RV works like that.  If so, I think accuracy  may depend on how far you go into your own future to access your own memory of the event/feedback/outcome....and at what stage in the future you retrieve the memories from. (eg. If Dunne had gone forward 15 years he may have got the right number :-)). This may be particularly important in ARV if going after outcomes of events...eg football results.....you must make sure you don't just get the score at half-time:-)..

I first I thought that this must mean that we only view the feedback (or rather our memory of seeing the feedback, and everything attached to the original feedback of a target; ie web-pages, discussions etc..because it is all part of the ongoing cumulative, and altering, memory), but people have reported bilocation  and experiences of  *being* at the site, so how does that fit in? Well, anyone who has had a lucid dream will attest to how wonderful the brain is at putting together 'universes' of it's own creation and immersing you in them. It could also do this with a memory, and if the memory is based on fact then the ‘immersion’ would appear real.

FM explains so much IMO. For example why things are so vague, unclear,  distorted...that there appears to be overlay, associations, AOL...Let's face it, what real memories are uncluttered? Especially over time. They pick up all sorts of baggage, and even become totally distorted to the point of being false. This may be  what we are dealing with in RV, all the time. If only more people would consider it…..it deserves serious consideration.

Glyn

energycritter, somewhere around September 15, 2003

Hey Glyn, I have yet to finish reading your second post of this thread, but, I wanted to jump in and first say that my wife had starting talking down this vain the other day.

I told her about T-bone's session with the.....OH..crap, I can not remember what the target was called, anyway.....his sister gave him the target and he did great.

Well, my wife thought of the future memory thing when we were discussing how well he did. She figured that he had a memory of the target since the session seemed so accurate.

Not only was it accurate, the accuracy related to the exact locations of his visit to the target. It seemed that he was remembering his future visit when he was doing his RV session in the past. I do not know.....it just came up and we figured that the idea of all time existing at the same time, or whatever, was why he could access the perfect memory of the target as he saw it in the future when he visited the target after the session, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Anyway, I like playing with the idea....I will now get some work done and then read the rest of your second post....well, I will most likely not get any wrok done... ;)

Hey T-bone....are you there..?..have you ever considered this future memory idea as it relates to the target I mentioned?

BC/EC

T-bone, somewhere around September 15, 2003

Good Morning All  :)

I don't think it has a whole lot to do with it EC.  I've RV'd targets sucessfuly before without actualy going to the target area, for that matter, there have been a few I never got any feedback on other than a confirmation of a "hit".  I think they are two different things that may sometime overlap, but one does not seem dependent on the other, if that makes any sense.

???

energycritter, somewhere around September 15, 2003

Hey T-B.....that is understandable....

I guess it just seemed like your hit was so connected to how you actually ended up seeing it all.

Cool session you had, nonetheless.....

BC/EC

admin, somewhere around September 15, 2003

Yup, seeing the future is a big impact it appears.

On a target mentioned elsewhere on the board, of Mae West, when I first saw the feedback, which was incredibly tiny and poor graphic, I actually though there was a man in uniform on the left, and her on the right, and then something between then (a goblet she was holding).  In the session I described, initially, two people with something between them.  

On feedback I was instantly aware that this was correct.  Then later was aware that this was totally wrong, lol.  That has happened to me more than once--that my session seemed correct for 5 seconds, then I realized I was seeing the FB totally wrong.  

The REAL question is, was the session wrong because I saw the FB wrong, or did I see the FB wrong because I was so aware of my session data? :-)  That is a question Dunne didn't think to ask, I suspect. ;-)

It's well known that feedback can have a big effect on a viewer, although the degree depends on the viewer.  More important is the issue of what the viewer accepts as 'validation' (feedback).  

A viewer who accepts data another person got, or a viewer they respect got, as validation, is far more likely to consider that stuff 'feedback' on a psychological level, even if it's not officially.  This can be a real problem, since it is often difficult to keep all info except the formal feedback point from a viewer for all eternity of course.

If a viewer tends to get data based on what they validate as feedback and that scope is wide, then anything they hear about that target, including erroneous information, for the next 20 years may end up in the session.  Although this comes under the heading of feedback, this is an example of a real problematic "delineation of the target", actually.  It should be very clear prior to a session what the target is, and what the feedback is.

RV practice in a decent protocol resolves most feedback issues (beyond the fact that all feedbacks are 'partial' in some sense, of course).  There is one target: there is one set of feedback.  That feedback might have lots of components if desired (although most sessions are done on a specific aspect of something, and FB should be geared to the tasked session), but in any case, the feedback if it exists, for practice, is pre-determined.

In RV *practice*--using just photo practice here as the example, as there are other types of feedback and other types of tasking even on photo FB, in practice-- the goal is to describe 'the focus of the photo at the time the photo was taken'.  So it doesn't matter what is outside the camera focus; the session is specifically about what is either captured in, or inferred by what is captured in, the feedback itself.  That doesn't mean you're viewing the picture-on-paper, but it does mean that by nature, your tasking is directed to what has, or is inferred by, actual feedback (that pic on paper).  The act of RV will make it obvious quickly that you are not viewing the paper, because there is too much sensory and even 'experience' that are IN the target.

Future memory may be at work in RV, as I suspect it is a big part of psi across the board--not all, but much.

A good way to really screw up a viewer in training is to regularly screw up their feedback.  The whole point of practice with feedback is basic learning theory: action, response, correction(feedback).  It ain't rocket science.  But when this loop gets messed up, it's the viewer that pays.  Their psychology after awhile of that is not learning to focus intent or validation solely on what is objective feedback and the original intent, but rather, on whatever the tasker says about the session at any point, and whatever else might be in any way relevant to the target (but isn't part of the focus).  

Remote Viewing in my view comes down to learning how to pay attention in a way that excludes nearly all of the infinite universe except one thing, the target info.  It's a little blurry at the sides because that one thing is not in a vaccuum, it's attached to lots of other things, and some degree of that connection is both/neither and might come through.  But the whole point is training the intent, and the means of training is through very clear feedback, so it is an interactive experience.  This learning theory model works for anything, not just RV.  And messing up the feedback part of the loop will mess up the learning process for anything, not just RV.

There are two time points to best muddle feedback: at the initial point of FB ("Well the target was the moon, but while making this tasking there was a black cat on my desk, and I was looking at the print of 'starry starry night' on my wall while I considered 9/11 and the implications of it and worried about my mother who is ill and what would become of her horses.") and after FB ("Well you got A which wasn't in the FB but that's actually true, and here is a news article with 101 other points on or related to the topic in case it's interesting to you, and you got X which seems totally wrong but it's not because I was thinking about that at the time I did this tasking.")  Either of those examples violates what could be considered a decent RV protocol--and if you blow the protocol, it isn't RV; it may be psychic, but RV got a good reputation BECAUSE considerations like this were taken seriously and upheld.  

They are not always nowdays in the layman's field, which often demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about the topic, and kind of walks RV back into the 'plain psychic' stuff it always was, except with some method attached.

The more insidious part of the above examples is that the viewer is being trained, gradually, to consider the validation of the tasker/trainer to be *more relevant than the factual feedback* they were given officially.  If you want to build a cult this is great, but if you want viewers who can work independently, it's not the approach of choice.  

It also tends to train the viewer to greatly 'diffuse' the intent of the tasker, and happily pick up every stray thought they might have, and any remote aspect that could be considered part of the target, rather than focusing on--and only validating--the official intent.

It tends to create viewers who are fragile flowers,  dependent on a perfect process, and a zen-level tasker, because the slightest variance in process or tasker intent is sure to end up in their session.  This is the polar opposite of what someone should want to train into a viewer -- a viewer should be as independent, strong-willed, focused on intent-only, focus-only, as humanly possible.  Everything in a training process should be set up to facilitate that.

As a last note, the primary work in RV practice is the change of belief systems.  The primary change comes from very specific, as immediate as possible, hard feedback, under double-blind conditions. This forces the psychology to deal with it. There are no 'outs'. There is no amount of subconscious subterfuge that will escape having beliefs modified by this repeated proof (the mind will TRY--it's up to the viewer not to let it).  

The more you open up feedback (the viewer's future as concerns a session), the less you demand the mind to deal with quick specific feedback, and the less change in fundamental belief systems happens.  Which is to say, the less actual value to the viewer's psychology of the RV practice process.

[quote]Q. What part of RV 'talent' do you think is psychology?
A.  All of it.
-- Joe McMoneagle[/quote]
A real interest in what effect the future has on remote viewing--both the development of viewers, and the results in a session--can lead to a lot of insight.  I think FM is a very interesting topic.

PJ

energycritter, somewhere around September 15, 2003

OK...that was meaty....I am intending digestive enzymes into my head at this moment so that I can get the full impact of that.

too cool.....

good stuff for sure..... :)

BC/EC

Glyn, somewhere around September 15, 2003

..Yes, very meaty indeed. Gotta go out, so will have to get back later, but I feel a great discussion coming on.
:-).


Later,
Grins from
Glyn

energycritter, somewhere around September 16, 2003

While driving home last night I did a lot of thinking about this subject regarding one of my sessions.

The first time I saw the FB the picture was very small. What I drew was solid and dark colored and the FB rendered that as I had drawn it. I thought....cool.....but, then I double clicked on the picture to enlarge it and the dark areas lightened up and it became evident that the dark area was actually brown and was not solid as I had drawn it but a row of pillars that appeared to be solid when the picture was small.

Same question applied....was I getting data in my session that came from FM or was my FB affected by my session.

T-Bone, I know you said that your's was not FM...and I understand that....but, I was talking with my wife last night about it and I hope you do not mind, but, we piled lots of conjecture on top of your session while rereading PJ's post from above and we still considered it very odd that your session was how it was.

You were tasked with a fragment of text that mentioned the name of the target. You did not have a picture. So, it seems as if the data, if it were not from FM, would be of the image that would come to mind when a person thinks of that target or how the target would appear if it were to be a photo. But, your data was of exactly what you saw when you vivisted the target and it came to you in your session in the order that you saw it.

You first approached the front of the visitor's entrance, realised your data was good, then proceeded to the top and saw the rest of your data, as it appeared during your session.

It could have nothing to do with FM, but, it just presents such a good case to play with, in a way.

This is a fun way to look at things like this.

Wild wild stuff.....

T-bone....I hope you do not mind me using your session in this discussion in a way that contradicts your opinion.

I am just playing around with the ideas.

Cheers all......BC/EC

T-bone, somewhere around September 16, 2003

No biggy EC,

Like I said before, for me, it's not about the hows or whys anymore.  It's about the fact that I KNOW.  I HAVE DONE IT, and CAN DO IT.  That's something nobody can take away from me.

Until the "Mainstream" science folks come down off their pedistals and open their minds to accept that RV and other PSI does exist, start funding some UNBIASED mainstream investingating projects to validate and FULLY investigate ALL of these so-called "phenomonon", then publish the results for all to see, my guess is we will be guessing and theorizing about it untill we are all old and grey.

energycritter, somewhere around September 16, 2003

I hear you T-bone...... ;)

thanks dude..... :)

BC/EC

wizopeva, somewhere around September 16, 2003

Yup, I agree that from what I've seen, feedback often does effect what happened back during the session.  It's a time loop thing that can be difficult to wrap one's brain around.  It also does correlate with this idea of future memory.  However, there have been times when viewers were tasked with things in which they the viewers were never given feedback.  Of course, others like the taskers often did get eventual feedback.  I'm sure this happened a lot in the military program.  In such cases, rv still was able to work.  So some people came up with a theory that it was mind reading and that it wasn't just the viewer's own future memory that could be gleaned by the viewer, but also the memory of anyone at any time on Earth.  The question then arises about what kinds of 'memory' can be accessed.  Can a dog be accessed?  What about a fly?  What about a rock?  What about an alien?  What is consciousness and what is memory?  Perhaps if consciousness pervades all things then yeah, rv is in fact a case of future memory, if you want to look at it that way..
-E




[quote]Yup, seeing the future is a big impact it appears.

On a target mentioned elsewhere on the board, of Mae West, when I first saw the feedback, which was incredibly tiny and poor graphic, I actually though there was a man in uniform on the left, and her on the right, and then something between then (a goblet she was holding).  In the session I described, initially, two people with something between them.  

On feedback I was instantly aware that this was correct.  Then later was aware that this was totally wrong, lol.  That has happened to me more than once--that my session seemed correct for 5 seconds, then I realized I was seeing the FB totally wrong.  

The REAL question is, was the session wrong because I saw the FB wrong, or did I see the FB wrong because I was so aware of my session data? :-)  That is a question Dunne didn't think to ask, I suspect. ;-)

It's well known that feedback can have a big effect on a viewer, although the degree depends on the viewer.  More important is the issue of what the viewer accepts as 'validation' (feedback).  

PJ
[/quote]

T-bone, somewhere around September 17, 2003

OK, ok, ok... Now you've got me pondering...  Maybe you're right EC.  According to what I understand about the Akashik Records, all events, past present and future are contained there.  So if by some chance we as remote viewers are accessing the Akashik Records, then I would definitly say yes EC.  Having visited them once by mere accident during meditation, I can see a direct corelation between the two.  I had forgoten about that until a semi-lucid dream reminded me of a connection between the two last night.  

Strange an wonderful things are happening right under my nose, and I'm just now seeing them...  :)  

energycritter, somewhere around September 17, 2003

cool
cool
cool

I am glad to hear that T-bone......

so, from that mind set, the FM gives things a little chunk of........hhhhhhmmmmmmm

ah haaaaaa

let the insights ensue.......................

sjdsljd iwoad jsaiywdf hgsjdochiOVE this stuff

BC/EC

mindchild, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Wow! I love this place  :)  

I read about remembering the future at some point, and it felt right somehow...sometimes when introduced to new concepts, they make me feel like my mind has to expand for them, really, I'm not pea brained, but sometimes wrapping your mind around a new concept invokes some very pleasing sensations ;-)  This is one of them for me.

This thread is fleshing it out more, I'll be spending more time here digesting the comments further.  And EC, send over some of those enzymes.

You guys are great  ;-)
Laurie

T-bone, somewhere around September 17, 2003

LOL, if ya' liked that, you'll love this.  In the same dream, I saw some of you guys and gals!  Stranger yet, I didn't have anything to compare apperances with until I found a pic of PJ this morning and then I realy freaked.  Same as she appeared in the dream.  

Hmmm... maybe not a dream after all, maybe some sort of astral travel/projection.  The whole thing did have a strange feeling to it.  I dunno'... Enlightening, confusing and enthraling all at the same time, or as my Uncle used to say "Coooool Man".   8)

energycritter, somewhere around September 17, 2003

[quote]LOL, if ya' liked that, you'll love this.  In the same dream, I saw some of you guys and gals!  

[color=Orange]OK....this is getting trippy....the last few days have been filled with the idea of a gathering of sorts that existed un-assisted as well as un-intended and contained aspects of each and the energies of each being increased or something like that and the support of each being so affectual in each individual in different ways...sort of thing....my point being, the sharing is sensational, meaning, has a feel to it, in the ether/spirit of things, when intending/thinking about or on them.....OK......what was that....[/color]

Stranger yet, I didn't have anything to compare apperances with until I found a pic of PJ this morning and then I realy freaked.  [color=Orange]Yea, that day came for me a while ago, exactly as you mentioned it, exactly. The photo is the one on the EHE site, correct?....[/color] Same as she appeared in the dream.  

Hmmm... maybe not a dream after all, maybe some sort of astral travel/projection.  

[color=Orange].....this is the type of conjecture that can get into the inarticulate conjecture excitement babble......[/color]

The whole thing did have a strange feeling to it.  I dunno'... Enlightening, confusing and enthraling all at the same time, or as my Uncle used to say "Coooool Man".   8)

[color=Orange].....Yea, way too coooool man...........


BC/EC[/color]



[/quote]

energycritter, somewhere around September 17, 2003

[quote]
And EC, send over some of those enzymes.

Laurie
[/quote]

done.... ;)

enjoy...... ;-)

wizopeva, somewhere around September 17, 2003

OK now T-bone, you know I gotta ask.  -)id you see me?   I'm a blonde if that gives you any guidance.   ;-)

-E

T-bone, somewhere around September 17, 2003

[quote]OK now T-bone, you know I gotta ask.  Did you see me?   I'm a blonde if that gives you any guidance.   ;-)

-E

[/quote]

Well I did see A blonde woman, but I didn't exactly get her name and since I havn't seen your pic, I couldn't say for sure.  I was in a waiting room of sorts for a vast library of information/hall of records type place.  I don't know why I was there, other than I was looking for someone.   I met a few people and seem to know all of them.  I saw this late 20's early 30's guy who just grinned at me and I said your Energycritter! He chuckled and said "yep, I was wondering when you would figure it out!"  We chit chated for a few (about what I don't remember), and I was looking arround for people I knew.  I saw PJ, who looked up from a book, smiled and winked, then went back to reading.  I was trying to get into the records hall when I bumped into the blonde woman.  I remember thinking how pretty she was and was shocked when she said thank you (reading my thoughts) and kissed me and...
(BLUSHING) :-[  Errr.. uhhh... WELL THATS THE END

Afterthought:  I've been spending way to much time here....

energycritter, somewhere around September 17, 2003

[quote]

Well I did see A blonde woman, but I didn't exactly get her name and since I havn't seen your pic, I couldn't say for sure.  I was in a waiting room of sorts for a vast library of information/hall of records type place.  I don't know why I was there, other than I was looking for someone.   I met a few people and seem to know all of them.  I saw this late 20's early 30's guy who just grinned at me and I said your Energycritter! He chuckled and said "yep, I was wondering when you would figure it out!"  We chit chated for a few (about what I don't remember), and I was looking arround for people I knew.  I saw PJ, who looked up from a book, smiled and winked, then went back to reading.  I was trying to get into the records hall when I bumped into the blonde woman.  I remember thinking how pretty she was and was shocked when she said thank you and kissed me and...
(BLUSHING) :-[  Errr.. uhhh... WELL THATS THE END[/quote]


I love it.....too cool T-bone.....too coooool man...

Blushing away...say no more, say no more... ;) ;) ;-)
(feeling reticent, EC sinks into the state of knowing OH too well what T-bone is talking about....)

Well, FYI T-bone, I did or I should say, that I have, intended on connecting with you and others in the ether that divides us all.

OK...(spoken while pulling energy back from the key board......)....I will post and ponder......

whew....whew....breath

BC/EC

energycritter, somewhere around September 17, 2003

[quote]

Afterthought:  I've been spending way to much time here....[/quote]

Yea, maybe, or, not enough time spent there.... ;)

BC/EC

T-bone, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Sometimes I should just keep my big mouth shut... :-X

I think I'll go hide now...

energycritter, somewhere around September 17, 2003

If you have a good place to hide, please let me know...will it hold two?

see ya there......obviously you will recognize me now for sure....

T-bone, somewhere around September 17, 2003

[quote]


I love it.....too cool T-bone.....too coooool man...

Blushing away...say no more, say no more... ;) ;) ;-)
(feeling reticent, EC sinks into the state of knowing OH too well what T-bone is talking about....)

Well, FYI T-bone, I did or I should say, that I have, intended on connecting with you and others in the ether that divides us all.

OK...(spoken while pulling energy back from the key board......)....I will post and ponder......

whew....whew....breath

BC/EC[/quote]

OK, looking at this from a logical stand point (little late now)  I think that a receptive part of my subconsious mind (the blonde) was attempting to harminize with my consious mind (me) in an effort to help me understand how to gain access to the records area and broaden my understandings.

THIS IS THE LAST DREAM I'LL EVER POST   :-[

energycritter, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Oh no you don't get out of this that easy....you now have to tell us all of your dreams from now on.... ;) ;-)

The aspect thing you mentioned maybe part of it....I liked the idea of it being Eva though...he he

Ok, seriously though......what a trip.....I said "seriously though" and then went blank...sheesh...reticent again....good thread.....whew....I forgot to breath, hold on.....breath, breath, breath....OK, that should hold me for a few minutes....OK....if it was an aspect of you.....during your blushing session, did you get any clues how to get to the halls of knowledge from yourself.....or, did it all take on a different direction....hell, I should know...I was there...I need to ask myself what happened....

Was I an aspect of you too......?

T-bone, somewhere around September 17, 2003

I think that err.. you know... was the point, that I have to learn to harminize with the receptive part of my subcounsious in order to access that area.  

As far as YOU go EC, you represented a new, but familiar, part of my consious mind.  

(Either that or the comic relief - aka mens room attendant)

Just kinding  :P

wax, somewhere around September 17, 2003

I think its great you shared your dream  :) feels beautiful.

I had a similar experience several years ago when I met a woman, I said to her 'I know you'. We went through all the places we lived, trying to find the connection, it wasn't till later on that day I had a clear recollection of a dream I had where we originally met. Strange but neat.
Its really good to know others experience the same things also.

These Akashic records, is this a place somewhere or are we part of them experiencing them? ooo..this one is hard to explain...um...is reality the Akashic records?

Cool thread, this place is great, I'm still reading all the forum  :)

T-bone, somewhere around September 17, 2003

[quote]
These Akashic records, is this a place somewhere or are we part of them experiencing them? ooo..this one is hard to explain...um...is reality the Akashic records?
[/quote]

I think, and this is just my humble oppinion, that the Akashik Records exist on a plane of reality that is connected to our consious reality plane, but only accessable through our subconsious minds.  Imagine this, it is both connected to and part of what we know as time, and what we know as reality.  Sort of a mortar that holds the events of time together, preventing what we would call a "paradox".  If that makes any sense.  

OK, now that I read this, I realize I have no idea where that came from.  

I'm confused...

BTW, Akashik is a Sanscrit word that roughly translates to "Ether"

wax, somewhere around September 17, 2003

:) I've read stuff that says its a place that exists on a different plane and also some of the Cayce stuff that says it exists under the Sphinx.

When you say preventing a 'paradox' do you mean like a deja vu?

I'm wondering if anyone has had this as a target?

Your confused...lol get in the queue  ;)

energycritter, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Your confussion is beautiful....keep it up.

The confussion is good as a precursor for fleshing out the non-linear dynamics needed to obtain the correct positionality and perspective within the chaos theory, making it possible to bring order to the puzzle.

Yea, I know, what a load of crap that sentence was.... ;-)

T-bone, that may have been said by you and not me, it was an aspect of you that has been in me all day. You know what....I slept unussually sound last night. I even mentioned this to my wife this morning as being extreemly deep sleep for me last night. I woke up way late, no alarm sounded, I set it last night and turned it on and I woke this morning an hour late and had no idea what was going on. I got to work late and felt time was not as possible for me to relate to this morning...time felt so out of reach to comprehend today.

Wild.....

BC/EC

wax, somewhere around September 17, 2003

[quote]The confussion is good as a precursor for fleshing out the non-linear dynamics needed to obtain the correct positionality and perspective within the chaos theory, making it possible to bring order to the puzzle.[/quote]

oh yes of course! ...the vector inversion of liminal consciousness, reflecting the multi-dimensional of the space-time occasion.

I love that crap...really makes me smile  ;-)

energycritter, somewhere around September 17, 2003

wax on, wax.....I could not resist that....like, waxing poetic and suchlike...OK, I am being silly with your name....sorry, I do it with the uttmost respect.... ;)

Yea, I love the crap too....good stuff to cram into your head and see how many directions it can be turned before you have to pull on your ears to get the inside of your head to enlarge to hold the stuff.....yeeee freaakkking haaaawwww

OK.....cofffeee is being very very good to me....

OK, not just coffee......IFB.....

BC/EC

wax, somewhere around September 17, 2003

[quote]wax on, wax.....I could not resist that....like, waxing poetic and suchlike...OK, I am being silly with your name....sorry, I do it with the uttmost respect....  [/quote]

WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE!

hehe I've been saying ever since I registered here...lol

[quote]yeeee freaakkking haaaawwww [/quote]

yiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiyyi....thats my indian noise lol  :P

RV stretches the mind like nothing else I've encountered.

Has anyone ever RVed themselves in the past? and had a memory of it before it happened?

waterway, somewhere around September 18, 2003

.... and speaking of future memory, it looks like any memory, from the past or future, is simply the bits of info related to what we are doing/where we are at, in the moment we are having the memory.  

Again, all this seems to fit with the idea that.... Inside of you is that Web of Indra we talked about in another thread.... an endless web of connections between concepts, and at the juncture of those relationships are multifacetted jewels (which are our concepts) that reflect the image of all the other concepts in their facets.

Future memories seem to be  jewels only slightly connected to our present position on that web, such that we cannot connect them to all the other jewels within our reach, and therefore they seem "paranormal", or "transcendent" or "future" in their qualities.  Maybe the other connections they are attached to relate more to some "future" position on the web.  Remember, we are recognizing that "time" does not exist, all the things.... all the jewels in your web, already exist and are connected to all the other things...memories, emotions, events, places, times.... they are all jewels on your web.  You find yourself "here and now" cuz that is what we call all the jewels that connect together.  The stuff that doesn't "make sense" is ignored.

And as for feedback on stuff that never shows up, well, that isn't necessary.  The moment of knowledge of something is feedback enough.    Mr. McMoneagle got at this in that thread "What is Mr. McMoneagle talking about" or whatever its called....

Does any of that make sense?

Glyn, somewhere around September 19, 2003

Hi Waterway and all :-),

[Quote] And as for feedback on stuff that never shows up, well, that isn't necessary.  The moment of knowledge of something is feedback enough.    Mr. McMoneagle got at this in that thread "What is Mr. McMoneagle talking about" or whatever its called....

Does any of that make sense?[/Quote]

Yes that does make sense.  Even partial feedback is feedback..maybe not final, but it goes into the memory of course, and could be accessed in that incomplete state.  For example, if FM theory is even partly accurate, and a Viewer did a session and the subsequent feedback was a picture of, say,  a UFO sighting....then that is what may well be picked up by the Viewer, thereby indicating reality....when in fact the feedback, although seemingly accurate at the time could turn out to be untrue (ie it could turn out to be a hoax sometime in the future). This would make the session very accurate, but the provision of info to a client perhaps....would be ultimately wrong.

I think care should be taken about that. Careful tasking/feedback provision to *final* event (even photo feedback is an event) may help compensate for that, and needs to be thought about I think. Whatever....but noone yet knows how we get the info, and  it would pay to keep it in mind and retask accordingly before believing some of the more outlandish session results we all get  ;)

Also the better the feedback then the better the session, perhaps; depends on the quality of the Viewer though of course. That is paramount. If you want a better chance of a good session though, then be sure the feedback is good...and not confused by additional detail.

For example, I did a session for someone a while back, and when I got the mail with the feedback the first paragraph was about something that went on at the feedback meeting...........and guess what I had picked up on.. ;-). Fairly accurately I was pleased to observe...but it rendered the actual Viewing (which was an experiment), totally useless. Feedback should be provided as carefully as tasking is made. Not enough attention seems to be paid to that. People talk about 'overlay', and I think that is how it could happen.

Maybe to make a fuss at feedback time would help with accuracy too.....to be sure to make feedback somehow  *memorable* :-). I think this has been recognised for some time in RV, because I have heard it said before. It may be better if it happens 'accidentally' too...ie. if the person providing the feedback makes it stand out, or if the event is more memorable (which is why I think operational targets can produce better results...they make for interesting feedback). The Viewer could try to make a feedback occasion memorable him/herself too...by paying close attention to the feedback photo for example...but overdoing it by searching on the web for additional info etc is probably not a good idea as you may get bits of this and that going into your memory....which although maybe picked up in the past, doesn't really make for an accurate session.

When doing that sort of thing (searching the web) at feedback time, I've ended up seeing other photos that had nothing to do with the intended feedback but I have found interesting....and have recognised bits of in my session....I'm trying for accuracy, so now I try to stick with the intended (and hopefully final) feedback.

Remember these are just my opinions based on my own experiences. Others will probably have had different experiences, but some may have noticed the same thing.

Wow there has been quite a discussion here....I have been off line almost all week, and on holiday (vacation) the week before, so I have a lot of catching up to do. Later I will go back to the beginning and start with PJ's reply.

Some intriguing mails. I've just skimmed over them so far...and there are loads more threads on the site too. Oh woe! Will I ever catch up?? :o).

BTW..If anyone is installing McAvee Security System over Windows and they can't get some of the web-functions to work either then consider me an expert....<sigh>. :-/.

Still the thing is working fine at the moment...and said it stopped a hack attack too; so it must have been worth it :-).

Later...better get reading and some posts done before my 'puter goes base over apex again.

Kind regards,
Glyn

waterway, somewhere around September 19, 2003

Hey Glyn and whover else is willing to respond,

You mentioned "memoriable" stuff is easier to view.

Does it make sense that "personal" stuff would be easier to view?  If I had a collection of tasking locations that were all places/events from my life, places where "memorable" things occurred.... would my hit rate go up?

If I was able to differentiate the sites enough, and have these sites be appropriate otherwise...?

Do hit rates  go up if the tasker and viewer are "close", like lovers or longtime friends or family?  

wax, somewhere around September 19, 2003

:)

I'm wondering how you would set up an experiment to see if furture memory exists?

any ideas?

Glyn, somewhere around September 19, 2003

Hi Waterway,

[Quote]You mentioned "memoriable" stuff is easier to view. [/Quote]

I never say *is*, because there are so many variables and nobody knows how psi works so FM theory could be wrong. However, it makes sense to me (as a fan of the theory  ;)), that this may be the case.

[Quote] Does it make sense that "personal" stuff would be easier to view?  If I had a collection of tasking locations that were all places/events from my life, places where "memorable" things occurred.... would my hit rate go up? [/Quote]

Well, yes this could work, as you would recall earlier memories when you see the feedback, and it would be like a 'reinforcement' of those memories so may 'stand out' more clearly back in the past.

Why not experiment and get your usual tasker (if you have one) to spring a target on you sometime in the future, or put a target like that in your own pool. See if you find any difference in the quality of your session.

I hope you get positive results...please let me know .

Kind regards,
Glyn

[size=0]This post edited by pj, code only. Glyn I took the "/" slash out of the FIRST 'quote' tag on each of your quotes... and you see that solved it, now they look like quotes.  The slash is only for the 'closing' tag. like {begin}{/end}. ;-) I know. Kinda confusing huh! - pj[/size]

Glyn, somewhere around September 19, 2003

Thanks PJ....I couldn't work out why it had stopped working for me. Thought it was another computer glitch. I'd better kick the brain-cells into line  ::)

admin, somewhere around September 19, 2003

There is a tiny 'modify' link at the top right of any message that you post, that you can click on, to edit a message.  Just take the slashes out of the first quote tag and it'll resolve.

It's not a brain thing.  It's just that any new system is hard to get the hang of and tkr's has a lot of options!

I'm especially fond of this one: ==>   ;-)

PJ

Glyn, somewhere around September 20, 2003

Hi EC,

[quote]While driving home last night I did a lot of thinking about this subject regarding one of my sessions.[/quote]

FM really ties the old brain-cells in knots doesn't it? I think some of mine have already jumped ship ;-)

You were talking about a session of yours and also of T-Bone's where it appears that the FM data that was retrieved was 'first impression' of feedback, and wondered whether that was significant.

Well yes I think it is. The example I gave from Dunne was a first impression of subsequent 'feedback' (his reading of the newspaper and getting the figures wrong). Yours was first impression, as was T-Bone's.

That experiment I spoke of in a previous mail where I viewed something in the feedback email that had nothing to do with the intended feedback...that also was first impression. I know of one other (an amazing story told to me that I have yet to relate here) that again was first impression.

If for some reason the data is accessed from the first impression of feedback...why? Detail of this incorrect first perception can come out in the session too. Heck! Why can't we then see ahead just that little way to get the correct information? If we were obtaining the information from our future memories of the 'whole' feedback then that would surely be evident. But it seems as if we are not.

Is it somehow because the later recognition of the mistake after the feedback somehow makes that mistake itself more *memorable*?

Or is it that the access 'window' is so short that first impression is all we can get, and unintentional incorrect first observations of the feedback have just highlighted this?

Would Viewer intent overcome this, or is it something that for some reason is bound to happen?

Anybody else got any examples of this sort of thing happening to them? Please post, as we need all the information we can get on this.

Thanks for that post EC. Wow, there's certainly a lot of food for thought on this Board isn't there. :-)

Kind regards,
Glyn

Glyn, somewhere around September 20, 2003

Hi PJ,

[quote]On a target mentioned elsewhere on the board, of Mae West, when I first saw the feedback, which was incredibly tiny and poor graphic, I actually though there was a man in uniform on the left, and her on the right, and then something between then (a goblet she was holding).  In the session I described, initially, two people with something between them.  On feedback I was instantly aware that this was correct.  Then later was aware that this was totally wrong, lol.  That has happened to me more than once--that my session seemed correct for 5 seconds, then I realized I was seeing the FB totally wrong.  [/quote]

I've only just got to your mail. Yet more examples of first impression! This is getting really interesting.

[quote]The REAL question is, was the session wrong because I saw the FB wrong, or did I see the FB wrong because I was so aware of my session data? :-)  That is a question Dunne didn't think to ask, I suspect. ;-)[/quote]

I wouldn't mind betting that you are 100 percent correct  there PJ, but then he was a man on his own, whose notions were way before his 'time' (bad pun).....ridiculed side-lined and thought to be a bit 'flaky' I think. He didn't have the benefit of the internet and a group like this who accept psi as 'given' either.   :)

I think your session was *right* because you saw the feedback *correctly*....even though, because of your initial mis-perception you did not see the *intended* feedback immediately. ;) This makes even more sense if this 'first impression of feedback/small window' thing plays any part.

[quote]A viewer who accepts data another person got, or a viewer they respect got, as validation, is far more likely to consider that stuff 'feedback' on a psychological level, even if it's not officially.  This can be a real problem, since it is often difficult to keep all info except the formal feedback point from a viewer for all eternity of course.[/quote]

Absolutely, anything connected with the target taken on board by the Viewer at any time before his death will form a memory, and who knows what governs the point of access.

[quote]  It should be very clear prior to a session what the target is, and what the feedback is.[/quote]

My jury is out about the importance of the Tasking (unless it is part of the feedback), but the person who actually supplies the feedback (whether that turns out to be the actual Tasker or another), has a very critical role IMO..as does the Viewer at feedback time.

If the feedback is not clear, or is incomplete, or the Viewer does not observe the feedback correctly, or there are misperceptions, then that could affect the result. The moment of feedback....where the first information enters the memory of the Viewer..whether it happens 'cleanly'...now that moment may prove to be *vital*.

Feedback is easier to control with something like a static photo feedback than with a live  or moving event. If FM is at work, then clarity of session could be determined by what happens in the future...not the tasking in the past.

[quote]In RV *practice*--using just photo practice here as the example, as there are other types of feedback and other types of tasking even on photo FB, in practice-- the goal is to describe 'the focus of the photo at the time the photo was taken'.  So it doesn't matter what is outside the camera focus; the session is specifically about what is either captured in, or inferred by what is captured in, the feedback itself.  That doesn't mean you're viewing the picture-on-paper, but it does mean that by nature, your tasking is directed to what has, or is inferred by, actual feedback (that pic on paper).  The act of RV will make it obvious quickly that you are not viewing the paper, because there is too much sensory and even 'experience' that are IN the target.[/quote]

Yes, but if FM is an issue then I think the reason we may get impressions of things not in the immediate feedback (photo or otherwise) is that at the time of feedback other memories from previous existance will be triggered anyway. For example, think of a tree now....perhaps you can hear the leaves rustle, maybe smell a woodland smell. Then we have the added complication mentioned above...the picking up in the session of subsequent future memories too.

[quote]Future memory may be at work in RV, as I suspect it is a big part of psi across the board--not all, but much.[/quote]

Yes, I agree. Even if FM is at work then *how* is the question. It actually may not be FM after all...but just appear to be.  (Some will disagree that it even appears to be FM at all...it remains to be seen).  

Why this first impression thing too? Is it a red-herring? There is not enough data. If it was reported to be happening time after time after time then that would be something else of course. Also what if there is a series of separate feedback events relevant to a target? I don't mean as in multi-tasking like in some operational targets, but one target that could change over time...ie the result of a sequence of events where feedback could come in stages and result could depend on access point. Is it always a short first window of each set of memories associated with that target that is accessed? That would be interesting to ascertain.

[quote]A good way to really screw up a viewer in training is to regularly screw up their feedback. [/quote].

I think that to go anywhere towards disproving FM we would need to do just that  ;) That is why the concept of masking interests me so much....but I would need to know the sequence of events, feedback especially, and see the sessions etc before coming to any personal conclusion as to whether FM is in there somewhere.

Actually it may be easier to dis-prove FM than to prove it if we cannot dis-prove it . Does that make sense?  ;-)

[quote]There are two time points to best muddle feedback: at the initial point of FB ("Well the target was the moon, but while making this tasking there was a black cat on my desk, and I was looking at the print of 'starry starry night' on my wall while I considered 9/11 and the implications of it and worried about my mother who is ill and what would become of her horses.") and after FB ("Well you got A which wasn't in the FB but that's actually true, and here is a news article with 101 other points on or related to the topic in case it's interesting to you, and you got X which seems totally wrong but it's not because I was thinking about that at the time I did this tasking.")  Either of those examples violates what could be considered a decent RV protocol--and if you blow the protocol, it isn't RV; it may be psychic, but RV got a good reputation BECAUSE considerations like this were taken seriously and upheld.  [/quote]

;-) ;-) Oh yes, hasn't that happened to all of us. Damnably frustrating too. Again this is all feedback and all gets in the memory. The less unnecessary 'confirmation' at feedback time the better IMO.

Trouble is, where do we draw the line?....discussion after a session is fun and vital. The thing maybe we need to do is to give feedback time a Start and End marker like a session itself can have.......so anything said after the feedback 'END'  point is not to be taken on board as part of the feedback. Actually if this 'first impression' thing holds up it may be vital to say nothing just *before* feedback rather than worry about after.

Well we could try  ;-)

[Quote]The more insidious part of the above examples is that the viewer is being trained, gradually, to consider the validation of the tasker/trainer to be *more relevant than the factual feedback* they were given officially.  If you want to build a cult this is great, but if you want viewers who can work independently, it's not the approach of choice.  [/quote].

Again I agree. If FM is at work then it may only be feedback and how it is presented/occurs that matters; and the intent of the Viewer, on both a conscious and  subconscious level to access this information. Quality of Viewer and strength of focus would also be highly relevant I should think. It may even be possible for very good Viewers to front-load themselves and still access fairly clean memories of future feedback events.

[quote]A real interest in what effect the future has on remote viewing--both the development of viewers, and the results in a session--can lead to a lot of insight.  I think FM is a very interesting topic.[/quote]

Oh isn't it just PJ? But how convoluted (is that a typo?), and what fun speculating  :). Some may think it a load of nonsense, and it may yet turn out to be.......but I don't think there is anything to replace it just yet.

Great mail PJ. Thanks for your own insights.

Phew, I do rattle on don't I? That's enough for a while I think  ;-)

Kind regards,
Glyn

Fire, somewhere around September 22, 2003

Howdy Glyn,

[quote]If for some reason the data is accessed from the first impression of feedback...why? Detail of this incorrect first perception can come out in the session too. Heck! Why can't we then see ahead just that little way to get the correct information? If we were obtaining the information from our future memories of the 'whole' feedback then that would surely be evident. But it seems as if we are not. [/quote]
I am inclined to think that anything touching emotion has more... 'momentum' within us.  I think the first view of FB and apparent validation carries more 'oomph' than the later reconsideration.  Although I think one can deliberately work on that sort of thing.

In some other esoteric arts where 'intent' is an issue, very specific focus is had toward generating emotion and other energies to bring to bear on one's intent (will), to strengthen it.  And, to specifically being very self-disciplined about not allowing oneself to 'wallow' in self-validations and emotions and daydreams and life situations that will validate or contribute to a result one does not want.  The same holds true for RV, but since it isn't generally taught as an esoteric art, much of that doesn't get talked about.

[quote]Or is it that the access 'window' is so short that first impression is all we can get, and unintentional incorrect first observations of the feedback have just highlighted this?[/quote]
Hmmmn. I can't say.  I don't think of it as an access window though.  I don't think of it as 'going' into the future or over-there to the target; if time or space don't exist then everything is here, now.  What varies is attention and memory I suspect; but both of those are pretty deep subjects on their own!

[quote]Would Viewer intent overcome this, or is it something that for some reason is bound to happen?[/quote]
I'm not sure I think anything is 'bound' to happen.  And I think the term 'intent' covers a pretty big range inside a human.

It has been my experience for a long time--more with others' sessions than my own, though this is mostly because my practice has always had to play third string to the rest of my life--that feedback, including the many aspects of 'validation' that are not formal feedback, has a terrific impact on a session.

However it's also been my observation that this is correlated with viewer skill, which is to say, that 'sharpening or intensifying intent' may be a big part of viewer skill--and that same quality may be a big part of dealing with the many wrenches that can be thrown into the process.

PJ

wizopeva, somewhere around September 22, 2003

My jury is out about the importance of the Tasking (unless it is part of the feedback), but the person who actually supplies the feedback (whether that turns out to be the actual Tasker or another), has a very critical role IMO..as does the Viewer at feedback time.


Well some unofficial experimentation could easily be done. In a best case scenario, there would be 3 people involved, one viewer, one tasker, and one person to supply a diff feedback then the original tasking.  One would task the original target and another would supply the incorrect feedback.  Neither of those would see the session.  Only the viewer would see his/her own session and the viewer would only see the incorrect feedback.   If such a target plan were mixed in with a number of other sessions that did not have a incorrect feedback but were done normally, it would be interesting to see if the viewer could figure out which target ID had incorrect feedback.  


[Actually it may be easier to dis-prove FM than to prove it if we cannot dis-prove it . Does that make sense?  ;-)

Well yeah, technically I think it's some kind of philosophical tenent somewhere that says you can never really PROVE a theory, only fail to disprove it.  So it's probably a huge exageration to say that the feeble few experiments (which are mostly case study anyway) currently being done by the rv community could constitute 'proof.'  That doesn't stop them from being very interesting though.   ;-)


Trouble is, where do we draw the line?....discussion after a session is fun and vital. The thing maybe we need to do is to give feedback time a Start and End marker like a session itself can have.......so anything said after the feedback 'END'  point is not to be taken on board as part of the feedback. Actually if this 'first impression' thing holds up it may be vital to say nothing just *before* feedback rather than worry about after.

Well I do think it's very usefully to sort of mentally impose limits on what you will tolerate as being included in the feedback.  Otherwise you could drive yourself bananas and IMO, it would probably not be good for the viewing either.  
-E

Fire, somewhere around September 23, 2003

[quote]{Glyn:}My jury is out about the importance of the Tasking (unless it is part of the feedback), but the person who actually supplies the feedback (whether that turns out to be the actual Tasker or another), has a very critical role IMO..as does the Viewer at feedback time.[/quote]
Well, you know, this is an area that highlights an issue that is really a problem in this whole field.  And that is, that what really is (has to be, will be, is "causative" in RV), is NOT the same in the lab with experts as it is in the layman's world with novices.

The lab can prove that a viewer doesn't have to be influenced by feedback.  But it becomes very difficult to prove that 'all' viewers don't have to be; the nature of RV itself means that even the people in the lab are pretty much only a very tiny% of people in RV (let alone in the world) to begin with.

Realistically--for us mere mortals out here in Layman's Land--feedback appears to influence sessions, at least for quite some time.  For experts, it often doesn't--to the point where the viewer may even explain in session why feedback is wrong, or just that is.  

Examples:
1 - Ingo Swann when he started doing RV by 'coordinates', described an island, land, surrounded by water.  The atlas showed empty ocean.  He adamantly insisted there was land there.  They realized they had a pitifully poor atlas, and he and Puthoff went and bought a really good, much more detailed atlas.  Guess what--the tasker didn't know, and the original feedback didn't show it, but there was indeed an island at his coordinates.  This not only demonstrated that feedback doesn't have to drive a session, but that the 'coordinates' system of tasking really worked.

2 - Joe McMoneagle, on a television demo setup, was put on this island alone with a film camera to do the session, and the session was precog based on which of five possible locations (all blind of course) would be selected for 'feedback'. The protocol was set up so they'd secure the session, then get Joe with the film guys, select the feedback, then drive to that location for some 'live' feedback.  They selected feedback and in trying to get to it, the traffic in london I think it was, was really insane, so they decided it wouldn't matter if they just went to a different one.  Of course, that blew the protocol--they didn't task him on what they visited, they tasked him on what they SELECTED to begin with. Anyway, they get feedback, and after, they sit and watch the film, and they can clearly see that McMoneagle is describing the session selected--but not the one he ended up visiting as his 'feedback'.  Joe tells them, "Just keep watching."  Before the session was over, Joe (on the film) says this was the target selected, but they would have difficulty getting to it, and would decide to visit a different location, and here's a little on that, but since they tasked him on what was selected, not visited, he must stay in protocol, that is why he was providing what he did.  The producers of most shows he's done work like that on are literally in awe.  It is kind of funny.  Anyway, so he had a whole "live" feedback--those are pretty powerful--yet not only described what he'd been tasked with anyway, but even the detail of the protocol break, the switch in feedback, etc.

[quote]{Eva:}Well some unofficial experimentation could easily be done.[/quote]
I think a small ton of official experimentation has been had on most of these basic scenarios.  Unfortunately, this is all the 'little stuff' in the heads of 'the people who were there'--it's not like they write a formal paper on every detail. Sigh.

[quote]{Eva:}Well I do think it's very usefully to sort of mentally impose limits on what you will tolerate as being included in the feedback.  Otherwise you could drive yourself bananas and IMO, it would probably not be good for the viewing either. [/quote]
Well the really good viewers I know are adamant about feedback not being screwed up for the learning process... but also about viewer intent being the thing that "really" drives results, and the issues that if a viewer believes feedback (or any experience near it) "will" bleed into their session even if wrong--it will.

PJ

Glyn, somewhere around September 23, 2003

Hi PJ,

[quote]The lab can prove that a viewer doesn't have to be influenced by feedback. [/quote]

The thing is, re FM theory, any or all future information/experiences associated with the target/experiment could quality as feedback; not just the 'intended' version.

That's the problem...Not to be influenced by feedback would mean a subject not being influenced by any of his/her future memories of that target/experience...right throughout their life. Are the labs sure of that I wonder? They would have to be to discount FM.

I have not heard of any recent lab experiments looking specifically for FM being at work in 'psi', although I would love to know of any results.

The only way they could try to be certain is to keep the info from the subject/Viewer until after the time of his/her death (not to publish results or discuss or anything either....just in case of leaks). Any results published before the death of the subject would need to give procedure, and that may mean the subject could get to know; even years in the future.......and storing a memory. It would be experimentally unsafe otherwise IMO...as far as disproving whether FM is at work in psi-perception anyway.

[quote]Examples:
1 - Ingo Swann when he started doing RV by 'coordinates', described an island, land, surrounded by water.  The atlas showed empty ocean.  He adamantly insisted there was land there.  They realized they had a pitifully poor atlas, and he and Puthoff went and bought a really good, much more detailed atlas.  Guess what--the tasker didn't know, and the original feedback didn't show it, but there was indeed an island at his coordinates.  This not only demonstrated that feedback doesn't have to drive a session, but that the 'coordinates' system of tasking really worked.[/quote]

The thing is PJ, Ingo's memories did eventually contain the latter information, so he could have skipped forward to those. Not originally intended feedback, no, but feedback nonetheless, and those memories would have stood out quite sharply. Still possibly FM at work, IMO.

[quote]2 - Joe McMoneagle, on a television demo setup, was put on this island alone with a film camera to do the session, and the session was precog based on which of five possible locations (all blind of course) would be selected for 'feedback'. The protocol was set up so they'd secure the session, then get Joe with the film guys, select the feedback, then drive to that location for some 'live' feedback.  They selected feedback and in trying to get to it, the traffic in london I think it was, was really insane, so they decided it wouldn't matter if they just went to a different one.  Of course, that blew the protocol--they didn't task him on what they visited, they tasked him on what they SELECTED to begin with. Anyway, they get feedback, and after, they sit and watch the film, and they can clearly see that McMoneagle is describing the session selected--but not the one he ended up visiting as his 'feedback'.  Joe tells them, "Just keep watching."  Before the session was over, Joe (on the film) says this was the target selected, but they would have difficulty getting to it, and would decide to visit a different location, and here's a little on that, but since they tasked him on what was selected, not visited, he must stay in protocol, that is why he was providing what he did.  The producers of most shows he's done work like that on are literally in awe.  It is kind of funny.  Anyway, so he had a whole "live" feedback--those are pretty powerful--yet not only described what he'd been tasked with anyway, but even the detail of the protocol break, the switch in feedback, etc.[/quote]

Awesome! Joe didn't only access his future memories as to what he would eventually learn had happened, but he rationalised the information into linear order too. Wonderful example of a brilliant Viewer at work; but still nothing to convince me FM wasn't involved.

I think we may have to agree to disagree about some of this PJ ;-) ;-).

But however it works, it's 'psi', and isn't it  wonderful!  ;-)

Grins from,
Glyn

admin, somewhere around September 23, 2003

Howdy Glyn,

[quote]The thing is, re FM theory, any or all future information/experiences associated with the target/experiment could quality as feedback; not just the 'intended' version.[/quote]
Yeah, I agree.

I expect it might come down to the viewer.  In other words, if I validate what person X says, and not what person Y says, it's a lot more likely that person X's comments will be part of the 'informal validation' I get that might be added to what my mind considers feedback.  

(This is seen even in research, what they call the 'sheep and goats' effect, where viewers seem to best 'match' those they validate--and this is even psychically, without consciously knowing a certain other viewer was involved or what they got on the target.)

So in other words, if the viewer is highly disciplined with themselves to only validate 'the eventual proven-right feedback', then they might 'pay more attention' to that--even if it came around 30 years later--than they did to the feedback they got an hour after the session.

So in the end, like everything else, perhaps it all comes down to the viewer.  

After all, we are equally exposed to all our experiences from birth to death--what varies is how much 'attention we pay' to one thing or another.  We control our attention--or at least, we can control a whole lot more of it through discipline and focus on doing exactly that.

[quote]I have not heard of any recent lab experiments looking specifically for FM being at work in 'psi', although I would love to know of any results.  The only way they could try to be certain is to keep the info from the subject/Viewer until after the time of his/her death (not to publish results or discuss or anything either....just in case of leaks).[/quote]
It's been done, in several cases.  -)r. Ed May told me about sessions done by viewers, some of whom are still alive, some of whom are dead, in which feedback was never revealed (or perhaps the target not yet even generated!) until after the viewer was dead.  One of these was Pat Price as far as I know.  Others, they're waiting for them to kick off. ;-)

[quote]The thing is PJ, Ingo's memories did eventually contain the latter information, so he could have skipped forward to those. Not originally intended feedback, no, but feedback nonetheless, and those memories would have stood out quite sharply. Still possibly FM at work, IMO.[/quote]
Absolutely!--and that's the hardest part, because he wouldn't have seen the new atlas if he hadn't demanded better feedback, but it might only be having seen better feedback that created the effect in his session.  ;-)  It's damnably confusing as far as coming to any conclusion one way or the other.  But since we know just from seeing it happen that a person's future 'can' (doesn't necessarily HAVE to, but CAN) affect their session, we can see the importance of having set parameters to feedback.  

For example, if your target is X, and your tasking is 'the building of X', the feedback should show X, and that is that.  Yes, there will be aspects of X you get that aren't in feedback--e.g., conceptuals or smells aren't usually in pictures -- but if a viewer needs that level of feedback they should be working on targets with more/better feedback assigned with the tasking, or on live sites, or things like that.

If a viewer goes to the internet after a session and reads 14 web links all about X, things related to X, other factors of X, X in the past, present, speculations for the future etc., and 'validates' their session data because it matches some of that, they've not only blown decent RV protocol all to heck but they've now enlarged the 'possible data set' to a small universe.  It's the same with targets that are "news" issues--every media story in any form heard about it from now until eternity is going to end up being ad-hoc 'potential validation'.

[quote]Awesome! Joe didn't only access his future memories as to what he would eventually learn had happened, but he rationalised the information into linear order too. Wonderful example of a brilliant Viewer at work; but still nothing to convince me FM wasn't involved. [/quote]
Actually I assume it WAS involved--he was specifically targeting the future, after all, and he was personally involved in the future, so that makes more of a case 'for' FM than against it.

(I wasn't making cases against it, only exampling that 'formal' feedback--and you know what I think about the hazy definition on what is really 'feedback' for most people--doesn't have to drive sessions.  That was just one small point though.  It doesn't contradict FM necessarily, since as you point out, the future is not limited to formal feedback.)

[quote]I think we may have to agree to disagree about some of this PJ ;-) ;-). [/quote]
Well not yet, but keep trying, I am sure we can find something to argue about!  ;-)

PJ

pyre, somewhere around September 26, 2003

Hi Glyn

Very interesting about Future Memory. Such a fascinating topic. I'll look into the book. This is another view tho, not having read that theory. Maybe it could be that there is a sort of etheric substance that permeates everything. And if a person is able to reach the point where they have access to be able to mingle with tis level, then they just "know" everything and anything they want to  -  future, past or present.

I've had glimpses of this after I learned meditation back in 1970. THen other things seemed to shut this ability off for a while.

Just a thought. (Is that your photo beside your post? Lovely!)
Kristen

Glyn, somewhere around September 27, 2003

Hi Kristen,

[quote] Maybe it could be that there is a sort of etheric substance that permeates everything. And if a person is able to reach the point where they have access to be able to mingle with tis level, then they just "know" everything and anything they want to  -  future, past or present.[/quote]

Oh yes, I'm not totally tied in to FM theory, I'm open to all and every consideration, but as FM fascinates me so much I thought I would go on about it a bit here  :)

[quote]I've had glimpses of this after I learned meditation back in 1970. THen other things seemed to shut this ability off for a while.[/quote]
.

If you haven't read Lynn McTaggart's "The Field" Kristen, then I would very much recommend that you do so....it's about just the sort of thing you're speaking of. And who knows...it may enable access to our FMs  ;).


[Quote] (Is that your photo beside your post? Lovely! [/Quote]

;-) If only Kristen...if only.

Kind thoughts,
Glyn

Glyn, somewhere around September 27, 2003

Hi PJ,

[Quote]I expect it might come down to the viewer.  In other words, if I validate what person X says, and not what person Y says, it's a lot more likely that person X's comments will be part of the 'informal validation' I get that might be added to what my mind considers feedback. [/quote]

Mmmm, yes I agree, a future memory, at any 'snapshot' point in time, could consist of  memories which include  the opinions of others, not necessarily the 'whole' truth of the matter which could come to light further downstream.

Also at work could sometimes be the desire to please, which can be enormously strong, especially in connection with the 'Guru Factor'. To retrieve a memory, unconsciously, which would be in accord with what it is expected that the guru figure would wish to see.. perhaps.

Yes, you're right PJ, the impact of that sort of thing should be borne in mind......along with the other 3 million pitfalls  ;-).

[Quote]So in other words, if the viewer is highly disciplined with themselves to only validate 'the eventual proven-right feedback', then they might 'pay more attention' to that--even if it came around 30 years later--than they did to the feedback they got an hour after the session.[/quote]

Yes, if a Viewer constantly deliberately tries for  'end-game', then if feedback shown straight after the target is not, as you say, 'the eventual proven-right feedback', then it could appear, in the short term anyway, that the Viewer has messed up. Getting proven right just before dropping dead from old age doesn't have such a high satisfaction quotient I should think. ;-)

[quote] Dr. Ed May told me about sessions done by viewers, some of whom are still alive, some of whom are dead, in which feedback was never revealed (or perhaps the target not yet even generated!) until after the viewer was dead.  One of these was Pat Price as far as I know.  Others, they're waiting for them to kick off. ;-)[/quote]

That's the only way to do it perhaps, (disprove FM), but Dunne's theory of serial time caters for that too, and some modern theories appear to me to be similar. It's hard enough getting people to consider that we may access our future memories in the first place though, let alone being able to get at our memories across dimensions of time/probability.  :P

[Quote]If a viewer goes to the internet after a session and reads 14 web links all about X, things related to X, other factors of X, X in the past, present, speculations for the future etc., and 'validates' their session data because it matches some of that, they've not only blown decent RV protocol all to heck but they've now enlarged the 'possible data set' to a small universe. [/quote]

Yep, and we've probably all done that. ::). 

[Quote]It's the same with targets that are "news" issues--every media story in any form heard about it from now until eternity is going to end up being ad-hoc 'potential validation'.[/quote]

Yes, maybe so, with all the speculation, lies, spin, dissinformation, imagination, personal bias, mistaken assumptions, half-formed thoughts, associations, connections etc etc thrown in for good measure..mixed up and maybe half-forgotten too.  No wonder some of our sessions are a mess. ???  .

[quote]
Actually I assume it WAS involved--he was specifically targeting the future, after all, and he was personally involved in the future, so that makes more of a case 'for' FM than against it.

(I wasn't making cases against it, only exampling that 'formal' feedback--and you know what I think about the hazy definition on what is really 'feedback' for most people--doesn't have to drive sessions.  That was just one small point though.  It doesn't contradict FM necessarily, since as you point out, the future is not limited to formal feedback.)[/quote]

Sorry, PJ, I actually misinterpreted the meaning of your mail.

[quote] keep trying, I am sure we can find something to argue about!  ;-)[/quote]

OK  ;)...I'll think of something for my next mail. There is apparent paradox of FM theory that needs talking through.

Cheers for now,
Grins from,
Glyn

trypper, somewhere around September 28, 2003

I get future memories sometimes, Glyn

As a matter of fact, when I was reading the newspaper this morning  suddenly I remembered reading an article in the future about how Islamic terriorists had shifted their focus to business interests.

Instead of going after political or military targets, they were targeting commercial interests... manufacturing plants and such.

I remembered wondering how this would effect world trade.  

Anyway... it was one of those strange things that sometimes happen to me so I thought I'd mention it.

trypper

Kristen, somewhere around September 29, 2003

Hi Dear Glynnie!

Thanks for reminding me about "The Field"! Yes, I'll get it & read it.  All this is so interesting!

Take care,
With a smile,  ;)
Kristen

Glyn, somewhere around October 25, 2003

Hi Kristen :-),

[quote]
Thanks for reminding me about "The Field"! Yes, I'll get it & read it.  All this is so interesting! [/quote]

Have you managed to get a copy? If so, what did you think?

If you are interested in FM Kristen then another book you should definitely get under your belt is "Future Memory & Time.. A new Skill of Mind" by Sean O'Donnell.

I am re- reading it at the moment. If you have any problems getting it let me know as I do not know if it was published widely.  -)r O'Donnell refers to it as it 'Precall' or 'Anti-memory' more than 'Future memory' as he thinks it makes the concept clearer, but he means the same thing. He speaks of Dunne.

He says that he announced written instructions on how to use 'Precall' at the London Parascience conference in 1973, (and speaks about being rubbished by some..just as Dunne was it appears  :-/.)..and he goes on to say that in 1974 he started to hear of various reports on 'learned intuition from America. He mentions remote viewing and 'learned ESP'.

Very interesting book. IMO Dunne was the 'father' of FM theory, but Dr O'Donnell's ideas on it are far more 'modern'; and definitely less confusing  ;).

He thinks that it may be that an "internal Censor" (presumably to keep us anchored to linear time and therefore functional in this physical world), may be the reason, quote "......why paranormalists have left that ever-open option of time violation so strikingly ignored".

Well publicly anyway ;)

His book was first published in 1996, but his conclusions are based on "..an average of about 8 hours of direct precall experience weekly, and extending over some 25 years". He tells us to "try it and see" and there are some short instructions in the appendix of the book on how to practice developing 'deliberate precall' skills using playing cards, and....dare I say it......numbers.   ;-).

I must admit I have not yet tried his methods, because when I first read the book it was about the time I also read 'Psychic Warrior' (also pub 1996), which sparked my interest in learning about RV... but when I have finished the book I most definitely will, as he may throw some additional light on things.

It is interesting that when speaking of reports of the experiences of others when using his instructions, he says  "That it (precall) constitutes an exercise of considerable mental delicacy 'initially' is totally agreed. That it becomes rapidly easier and more automatic, seems also general. But, as with other high concentration skills like golf or ballet, even a few days of lapsed training will set you back considerably. Nevertheless competence can then be reattained more quickly than initially, and ever more readily with each new return"

Sound familiar?  Well...however each of us may believe psi works, it seems that there is hope for those of us who are inconsistent in our RV practice   ;-)  ;-)

Definitely worth a read.

BTW...Hope you have (or have had...I'm not sure when it is) a great time at the conference, and please tell us how it went and what was discussed :-).

Cheers for now,
Glyn

waterway, somewhere around October 30, 2003

Has anyone here read Atwater's book "Future Time", and if so, how does it contribute to this understanding of Future Memory being discussed here?

???

Glyn, somewhere around November 2, 2003

[quote]Has anyone here read Atwater's book "Future Time", and if so, how does it contribute to this understanding of Future Memory being discussed here?[/quote]

Hi Waterway,

By coincidence I have a copy of PMH Atwater's "Future Memory" sitting next to me on the couch right now :-). I bought it some time ago, but somehow never got round to reading it thoroughly, so thanks for that...your 'precall' is good. LOL!

I will start it today. Oh so much to read, so little time  ;).

For those interested in 'future memory', 'precall', 'anti-memory', 'preliving'  or whatever anyone may call it...I thoroughly recommend Sean O'Donnell's book. It has as much impact as Dunne's, and his ideas on time are far easier to understand.

From O'Donnell's point of view....If you can imagine that there is no time, as we have come to think of it, and that all that was, is, and will be, exists all at once... and it is the way our minds perceive things that gives us the impression of past and future. Our consciousness being like a moving slit (or aperture or window I guess) that illuminates our surroundings as we go through our lives. (Actually that is quite a popular way of thinking these days).

He gives a diagram that shows our consciousness (the present) as being in a valley between two hills. On the left is the past, the lines, containing 'peaks' of memorable experience are quite solid. Our past is more solid to us obviously, but becomes less so the further back in time our memory of events have to reach; which all of us with bad memories will attest to :-).  To the right is the hill of the future. The lines and peaks of this hill are much much more vague.

I can't help thinking that to use precall it may help to have a good recall memory, if you see what I mean.

Well Dr O'Donnell maintains we can learn to do it (precall), and get better at it the more we practice. (So when the RV teachers say practice, practice, practice, they have obviously made the same observation; however they may think it works :)).

His experiments make for fascinating reading, and he reports being able to precall playing cards, car number plates and has had success at the roulette table, and he gets better at it the more he practices. He gives instruction on how others can try his methods.

Interestingly, he reports, like others have, that as soon as he started to bet more than a small amount the ability would let him down. He also reports that an observer can also influence the outcome, especially an unsympathetic one (again that has come up in the research of others), and he mentions the need for praise and encouragement if there are observers as he has noticed a 'childlike' aspect to whatever part of the mind is being used in precall.........and generally he has experienced much better results working on his own.  

He likens this affect (precall ability letting him down when the stakes are high),  to the difference in mental state between walking confidently along a narrow wooden plank  on the ground and then doing the same thing high up in the air.. :o.  For the ordinary person to be able to perform a task to the same standard without turmoil at a subconscious level interfering with concentration would be extremely hard I should think.

Ordinary everyday recall would be hard enough.... Try visualising your own front room while perched precariously on one leg on a high-wire (I'm not speaking from experience BTW, just trying to put myself in that position mentally... ;-)).  

Do read his book, it is brilliant! I wonder what he doing now...how good he got 'at it'?

I will get back when I have finished PMH Atwater's book. From a quick flick through it seems as she is approaching things from a similar direction as she says that "'preliving' the future has less to do with 'psychic' forms of furturistic awareness than it does with the development of the higher brain". By this I assume she means that this is an ability that can be deliberately developed (as O'Donnell found). She mentions expanding in consciousness, which has slightly 'New Agey' tones, but it is the same thing at the root. It appears to be a mental ability after all. Should be a good read.

Oooh one more thing. Dr O'Donnell reports, and this is fascinating.....that when he swapped from using precall to predict what next playing card he would see,  to trying to use it to predict what next car registration he would see...he noticed a fall off in ability, and he had to start again (practice with car registrations). In other words it seems that if a person is good at one form of psi then it does not mean that they will be good at all. He did find however that after a while he found it easier to swap between one and the other as the overall ability seemed to rise..which is good news, but down to loads of practice.

Mmm within RV itself that may explain why often it seems that people are better at picking up one sort of impression than another, and that those who seem to be better at RV as a whole seem to be those who practice the most (allowing for natural talent of course, which makes a difference in any human endeavour).

Incidentally, Dr O'Donnell did not have any problem with numbers...as most of his experiments involved the precall of numbers. Seems to be saying some important things for those who want to use precall to win the lottery doesn't it?  Practice, practice and more bl...dy practice, while balancing on one leg on a high-wire over a raging torrent and still keeping your cool....and  maybe an audience is not a good idea. But that's an entirely different discussion of course  ;).

Cheers for now Waterway,
Kind regards,
Glyn

waterway, somewhere around November 3, 2003

Jinkies!  Thanks for the synopsis and the recommendation.  That book looks like a keeper.  

Quickly, prepare my steed!  I'm off to Barnes & Nobles!

hehehe....  ;-)  I don't really have a steed... I just always wanted to say that!  [size=1]...life is good...[/size]

Whew... gotta switch to decaf.  Anyway, that book sounds great.   When you have read some of Atwater's book, fill us in on your findings.

Again, thanks.

::)

waterway, somewhere around November 4, 2003

Hey Glyn,

I think I got too giddy too quickly there.

I am having a hard time finding this book.  I mean, its independently published.... and I cannot locate the publisher.  The few links I found on the net led no-where.

Can you send me a few clues as to how to contact the publisher/author to get a copy?

Also,  have you read any of Bruce Moen's books?

Glyn, somewhere around November 4, 2003

Hi Waterway,

[quote]
I am having a hard time finding this book.  I mean, its independently published.... and I cannot locate the publisher.  The few links I found on the net led no-where.

Can you send me a few clues as to how to contact the publisher/author to get a copy?[/quote]

Yes, it is by 'PreCall Press' in Galway Ireland so it looks, from the name, as if he published it himself.

It is not on Amazon.com, but I am pleased to say that it is still on Amazon.co.uk, so just enter "Future Memory and Time" in the search-engine there.

ISBN 0-9528409-0-1


Regards,
Glyn

waterway, somewhere around November 4, 2003

:o
Wow.... [size=1][color=Blue]Yer good....[/color][/size]

Thanks.

The_Spook, somewhere around November 6, 2003

Well I'm reading this interesting thread and going "Oh mah gosh, that future memory stuff has happened to me too"...usually as someone else said it was with them, when reading an account in a newspaper, I'll suddenly realize I remember it from before.

Also, have been in the state (remember you guys I'm new to all this) or what ever you call it where people will be talking, and I'll realize I have heard the conversation already, and for about 30 seconds to a minute, I'll know everything they are going to say, and what comes out of my mouth is like, preprogrammed.  

Precognitive, is that what you call it (I am very telepathic if that's any indication)?  I do this a lot...like...sitting in front of a computer once, at an employment center with several computers there, and a friend tells me "Oh Spook you have to check this website out for finding people's drivers' licenses" - and I intuitively knew it was a gag, but I typed in the url and looked at the guy and said "So what's going to come up, a picture of a monkey or a chimp or something?"  and of course....that's what came up.  And I'd never seen the website before (and he knew that so you should have seen how white his face got).  That kind of thing happens all the time to me.  

But back to the future memory stuff, it is a trip when it "kicks in" and suddenly you are there realizing you've "been here, done this" before.  Pretty wild.

waterway, somewhere around November 7, 2003

Yeah, that sorta stuff happens too, and more often lately.  Its kinda spooky... if you'll excuse the pun there.

Its weird to be in a group and start to say something and someone else says the exact, obscure thing.  

I wonder though if these coincidences are that, or if its something common we are just more sensitive to now? :-/

Glyn, somewhere around November 7, 2003

Hello there :-),

Yes, I've tried writing down my dreams and looking in newspapers for correlation...and it's amazing what can be found! Also, like loads of other people, I've had times where I'd suddenly think of someone, and shortly afterwards that person would phone me, or I would see them, or hear something about them from someone else. Gradually I came to recognise that if I suddenly had an 'out of the blue' thought that was completely unconnected to any previous line of thought (even by association), then it was likely that in a short while something would occur that was related to it.

I've started to notice this happening more and more as well.  It's never anything really important though, just small almost insignificant things...things that I really don't need to know, because subsequent meetings or phone-calls have never, in my experience, been urgent.  

Why doesn't it happen more often? Most of all why doesn't it happen when important things occur!!

For example, why didn't I get such a thought when my husband was stung by a wasp at work the other day, was in a lot of pain, and had an allergic reaction? Not a peep...nothing! Or could it be that I did? Maybe,  because I was concentrating (I was in a meeting at work at the time), and there is no difference in the 'volume' between those thoughts which concern the mundane and the more important.... that I just didn't notice above all the mental 'noise'. Or perhaps for some other reason(s) the 'conditions' were not right. Just like what happens in RV isn't it? Frustrating!

I think things like that probably happen to each and every one of us, and probably a heck of a lot more frequently than we know. The source of 'gut feelings' perhaps. I think people like us probably notice it more because we are more open to it. But why oh why, for most of us anyway, it is only the small stuff?

Thoughts?

(Yup, I still think it's future memory  :))
Kind Regards,
Glyn

trypper, somewhere around November 7, 2003

After a while it gets even more interesting.  

My husband never keeps his cell phone on.  Tonight I needed to reach him.  I called him.  He turned on his cellphone and it started to ring.

I love that kind of synchronicity.

trypper

Glyn, somewhere around November 11, 2003

Hi trypper,

[quote]After a while it gets even more interesting.  
My husband never keeps his cell phone on.  Tonight I needed to reach him.  I called him.  He turned on his cellphone and it started to ring.

I love that kind of synchronicity.[/quote]

That's impressive! Is it coincidence or is it 'Precall' at work? If so, whose?  Maybe it's telepathy which caused your husband to react; or does it only look that way?  Intriguing.

I love that sort of thing too..makes you go all 'tingly' doesn't it?

Kind regards,
Glyn

trypper, somewhere around November 11, 2003

Hi Glyn,

Ê
>That's impressive! Is it coincidence or is it 'Precall' at work? If >so, whose? ÊMaybe it's telepathy which caused your husband to
>react; or does it only look that way? ÊIntriguing.
Ê

I don't know really but my husband is a very smart and very intuitive guy and we are very lucky.  

I stopped believing in coincidence a long time ago though.  I think that some folks are connected in ways we can't always explain.

>I love that sort of thing too..makes you go all 'tingly' doesn't it?

Yes, it's fun.
Ê
Kind regards,
trypper

The_Spook, somewhere around November 11, 2003

Though I still think it helps to "be this way" (i.e., somewhat psychic, telepathic, whaaaatever) in RV work, it's still not the whole shebang as we all know.  Its not controlled "seeing" - this stuff just happens - and the difference is that it's this "poof" then its gone.

Right now I'm housesitting at my mom's and yesterday I begin thinking about a book delivery I was expecting that was going to be sent here and not to my home.  And of course literally five minutes later, here comes the Fed Ex guy with my book.  

Again, neat stuff when it happens.  But not the same as RV, that is certain....!

trypper, somewhere around November 11, 2003

Hi Glyn,

No, it's not the same as RV at all.

I have some issues with RV actually... trust issues mostly.  

Anyway.. that's a different topic for a different day.

trypper

Fire, somewhere around November 12, 2003

There are people I have seen who appear to believe that psychic functioning and psychic ability are one thing, but that remote viewing is something else--and I don't just mean for the definition of the term 'RV' but I mean, something where for example, being psychic really has nothing to do with it.

I say 'seen' as opposed to 'known' because to me these people are as odd as the undersea creatures on a PBS special.  I am completely nonplussed at how psychic functioning in a science protocol, or psychic functioning using methodX or methodY, could be considered "not being psychic".  Yet I know people who honestly believe they are not remotely psychic, they can just remote view.

(Of course I never met a well developed viewer who was confused about it but maybe that's just chance, or maybe my definition is in question.)

I know you didn't say that!, your comments just reminded me of that is all so I thought I'd wax in wonder for a moment...

Spontaneous psi--that being part of the "we live and breathe psi"--is not the same as RV, no.  Often even how it comes is different, but I personally have come to believe most of that is because psychic methodologies such as those referred to as RV sometimes bring more than what's on paper--they bring a whole mental model to the process that excludes vastly more than we suspect.  

Sometimes I think the difference between daily psi and session psi is mostly that I am just not paying attention to my mind as well as I am during an RV session.  

I have found if I bother to be 'aware' of myself, that my mind is constantly giving me what I used to think of as useless daydreams and ignore, but I am beginning to realize is symbolic information in the context of a thought series.  They are often slightly abstract and not in the forefront of my mind, like a second-track running alongside my conscious mind, so I don't normally notice them.

The more I allow my RV process to be what it will, without forcing a given structure on it, the more it becomes something that frankly isn't anything like what RV is officially known as at all (although I confess, don't ask me to describe what it's officially known as.  I just mean that most of what I experience daily, nobody in 8 years has talked to me about as being part of RV besides my best friend, and it's a good thing he does or I'd think I was nuts).

It is not very passive, to begin with; and I interact with the data itself, both symbolically and literally.  

I never had that before because the RV methods I used didn't really have room for that, and I don't just mean on paper, I mean, in the mental process of what-is-RV that kind of experience just wasn't in there.  

In fact, a lot of the kind of experience I have now, many viewers I know would scorn, would consider a waste of time, distraction, beside the point of the literal data they are attempting to collect.  Yet I am getting to the point where I feel like the objective data is a side effect of the subjective process--and frankly, a much lesser priority as far as my daily practice goes.  Yes, if I were doing a session specifically for data, the data would be a priority, but the daily thing is a discipline like Resh -- like prayer -- it has its structure but its value goes far beyond that.

I am realizing that at some point, at least for me, RV became a super unique process of personal exploration of how I relate to the universe, which is sort of 'based around' the process of collecting assumedly objective (I would debate that) data about the target.  

It's kind of funny because at one time I really would have been critical of that perspective, suggesting that experience is one thing but results are another and RV was about results.  Now I kind of laugh at how narrow my mental models have ALWAYS been--I have revised them 1000 times and still I'm sure they are ludicrously formatted and rigid and restricted compared to what they could be.

I find we can bring psi to us in any way we like. We can use part of our reality for an answer; we can look for 'signs'; we can pursue structured psi channels like say Tarot; we can do an actual RV session, but that often requires being more blind to the question than most other forms of inquiry for best results; I think psi is innate and flows through us constantly, and we CHOOSE how we are going to allow it to manifest in our lives, in our minds.  

For some people, the only doorway they give themselves is in an RV session, where they feel safe, things are controlled, steps are known, there's a clear beginning and most importantly an end to the process.  For others, sessions are just a time period of paying more attention than normal to what's always there.  

I think as one gets more used to psi even in a session, if the psychology is properly adapting and integrating it, one starts becoming more aware of psi even outside sessions.  It might be less that we are 'opening up' to it than that we are putting less effort into closing it off.

(Sort of rambling thoughts in response, I know...)

PJ

stuart_duke, somewhere around November 20, 2003

anyone work out any protocols for future RV stuff and test them?  ???

im about to undertake some experiments in this regard and just thought i would check here first

ive lurked on this board for quite some time and have learned a lot.  just want to thank everyone.  :)

stuart

energycritter, somewhere around November 20, 2003

Excellent Stuart, I look forward to hearing about the results of your testing.

BTW, welcome to TKR, “lurker no more”…..each day TKR dishes up quite a delightful meal…..I have had too little of time available for me to add any ingredients to the boards, but, hopefully your tests and your floatation tank will give us all good flavorful additions to the path/road selections.

See ya

ec

Glyn, somewhere around November 22, 2003

Hi Stuart,[quote] anyone work out any protocols for future RV stuff and test them?  ???

im about to undertake some experiments in this regard and just thought i would check here first

ive lurked on this board for quite some time and have learned a lot.  just want to thank everyone.  :)[/quote]

Great to hear that you are going to do some experiments. Please let us know how you get on.

To those that like the idea of future memory theory then it does seem to play a part in RV (all 'psi' of the ESP kind), but I think it may be extremely difficult to prove it either way.

Maybe one way of going about it would to first of all  take your own photograph of a target that has some very distinct gestalts  and task preferably a group of good viewers with it.  You ask them to do their sessions by a certain time. Five minutes after that time you burn the photograph and destroy all negatives or digital copies. Get someone to collect the viewer's sessions and do a blind simple analysis to pick out correlations and hold the sessions and the results for you.

Then get together some photos of targets with completely different gestalts to the target you tasked and get someone else who has no idea what you're doing, to just pick one of them at random.....and give  that to the viewers as feedback.

Then get the sessions and the objective analysis from whoever is holding them for you and compare output with both the targets (one only being very clear in your memory....hopefully  ::)).

If the sessions pointed towards the target that was substituted then you have neither proved nor disproved FM because it still stays 'apparent':-). However, if they pick up on the target you originally tasked , and you can *guarantee* with 100 percent certainty that not even a hint of what was in your original target is *ever* going to be revealed to them or anyone else,  not only during their lifetime but after their death too (just in case Dunne's theory of serial time overlap is correct ; just covering all options here ;))...well then and IMO only then, you may just have disproved it . You would have to destroy all written evidence, notes, never discuss it with anyone though, never publish your results.

If you can be that dedicated, and the experiment seems to have worked (ie the viewers pick up overwhelmingly on the now destroyed target), and you can do it again and again with the same result.... then you could be reasonably sure that you will have disproved FM theory to your own satisfaction. But where's the joy in that?

I prefer to do RV and take part in discussions and read the accounts and opinions of others, while keeping an eye open for situations where FM does not seem to play a part (to me anyway) in successful results... and then think of experiments. It's a bit hit and miss, and again I'm only going to prove it to my own satisfaction, but it's much more fun because I can talk about it ;).

I may be missing some really easy way of testing it, so if you can think of one I'd be very grateful to know.   :)

Kind regards,
Glyn

Glyn, somewhere around April 3, 2004

Hi all,

Dammit, dammit, and dammit!!!  What a sickener!  :P

Every year I bet on the UK Grand National horse race. I usually try to dream of something to do with the name of the winner. I have been lucky in the past and usually get one of the first four or even the winner itself. I don't 'do' the horses a lot, and never spend much money anyway because I do not have the courage of my convictions. I get symbolic things or oblique connections, almost like hints.....for example I once dreamed of a wolf and the winner was 'Wolverine', and another time there was a fantastic red sunset and the name of the winner was 'Red Rum'. I look for that 'recognition' we can get in RV.

Well this morning I awoke and immediately wrote down what I could remember of my dreams.

In one of them I was with my husband in a park or enclosure where there were lots and lots of stones/ pebbles lying about on the ground. It may have been some sort of archaelogical site, but it had importance because there were security guards on the gates.

The dream went on for a while, but in the end I remember picking up one pebble and looking closely at it in wonder. It was transparent and I realised it was a piece of amber, and it had something encased inside that looked like a tiny bird. I was aware how valuable it would be, and showed it to my husband and I declared that I was going to hide it under my clothes and take it away with me. I had to have it!

Well I put this piece of amber under my sweater and started to walk towards the gates. To my horror there were two guards with some sort of hand-held scanners and they were using them to see if the visitors were stealing anything. One approached me, and  I did not want to get caught, so I immediately got the piece of amber out and threw it away, and it landed back on the ground with all the other pebbles. The guard's expression told me he had known what I was doing, and I looked straight at him defiantly as I passed by on the way out and I said "If you can find it I'd pick that up as it will be worth a lot of money!"

I also wrote down part of another dream I had that I distinctly remembered. There were four of my husband's friends in a car (they were at some sporting event or other).  My husband had left them in the car for a while and had then come back to find that they had all stripped off in public and were sitting there absolutely butt naked.  :o ;-)

Well after I got up I looked at the runners and riders in a newspaper my sister phoned curious to know whether I'd had any dreams. After discussing them with her I ended up choosing three.... One was called 'Bear On Board' (The four 'bare' guys in the car.  ;-)), and another had the name of my husband in it ..'David's Lad' (As my husband had figured in both dreams I thought it may be significant), and the last was just a long-shot with very good odds, which is always worth a bet in the Grand National.

Well, I lost....absolutely......I didn't even have a horse in the first four.  :-/

The reason I am so sick about it  though is that my dream had hinted at the winner after all.....but for some inexplicable reason I just didn't give it any weight. I tried to find correlation with the first dream but just ignored what was so obvious. I still don't understand why. The winner was "Amberleigh House"! Dammit, 'amber' was worth a bet.....but I just didn't do it!

After the race I was talking to my sister on the phone and told her that I could kick myself up and down the street for not betting on it. She then said something that brought me up short...... she said that she was angry at herself too because she didn't place a bet on it either, and wasn't it strange that if she had picked it up and bet on it after I had told her about it, it  could have been worth a lot of money.....just like the dream said.

So, maybe in error back in the past in my dream I  had focused on my memory of the conversation my sister and I would have *after* the race was over. So I was never going to bet on that horse after all........because I had 'thrown it away', and my dream had told me this.

Heck, no wonder psi appears to be so 'fickle'....sometimes it appears to be telling you one thing and all the time it's saying something completely different.  ;-) ;-).

Maybe, maybe not, but that sort of thing happens so often that it's beyond coincidence now.

Kind regards,
Glyn

Kristen, somewhere around April 3, 2004

Interesting tale Glyn! I have found that if you don't allow yourself to feel frustrated over it, or that you "could kick yourself", then it leaves the opening for more dreams to happen that WILL let you pick up on the right answer in time. WIth me anyway, the frustration has shut down the intuitive or psi ability. So just be happy  -  with the thought that it's GOING to happen again SUCCESSFULLY!  ;-)

I'm gald you reminded me of this thought myself! Good to "hear" myself saying it as a reminder  ;)

Thanks!
With a smile,
Kristen
By the way, speaking of dreams, I spent last wknd at my sister's new fabulous mansion. Fantastic! She showed me to my lower level (of 3) suite and on the bed were 2 old esoteric books of mine that I had gotten in the 70s. Neither of us knew how she had gotten them & ended up with them for this long. Anyway, one was called "Invisible Helpers" by Leadbeater. Just wondering if you or anyone knows much about Theosophy or Leadbeater. It's a very interesting esoteric 'science'. Anyway, these 'helpers', Theosophists, help people in distress from the spirit realm (tho they're living), often thru dreams. Often they would meet to do OBEs together. They even called them "rounds", as doctors did. Like they were off to help those in distress. It's a very interesting collection of intervention stories. Fascinating!

Made me think of my clairvoyant professor from the Waldorf Inst. He was from Europe (as Leadbeater was & where Theosophy formed) and had studied Theosophy. He'd even enter the dreams of students sometimes & would speak to them about it afterward!

admin, somewhere around April 3, 2004

Glyn, that's fascinating--and it sounds like, some fear of psi there too (the guards watching to see if you had anything you weren't supposed to have :-))... but yeah, definitely 'Amber' was a player there, pretty amazing you guys would BOTH not bet on it... after the dream had the symbology of throwing it away, too.  Of course, perhaps the dream was psi not just about the race but about the outcome of your betting.  Isn't THAT a brain crunching time loop.  The chicken, or the egg?  Can't get one without the other. ;-)

PJ

Glyn, somewhere around April 4, 2004

Hi all,

Kristen said..
[quote]Interesting tale Glyn! I have found that if you don't allow yourself to feel frustrated over it, or that you "could kick yourself", then it leaves the opening for more dreams to happen that WILL let you pick up on the right answer in time. WIth me anyway, the frustration has shut down the intuitive or psi ability. So just be happy  -  with the thought that it's GOING to happen again SUCCESSFULLY![/quote]

Yup, thinking positively must help.....but if it was physically possible I would still kick myself round the block a few times  ::).

Your sister's place sounds really great! Hope she's got a housekeeper  ;).

PJ said..
[quote]--and it sounds like, some fear of psi there too (the guards watching to see if you had anything you weren't supposed to have )... [/quote]

That's an interesting idea...I wonder? Consciously I have no fear of psi, but you never really know what goes on underneath. I do think that we have some sort of mental 'barrier' that may prevent us from being overwhelmed by the information that could be available outside a linear time framework, so it may have been that. It's a good sign if I'm starting to face it....maybe next time I'll have the courage to run off with my ill-gotten gains  ;-).

[quote].....pretty amazing you guys would BOTH not bet on it... after the dream had the symbology of throwing it away, too.  Of course, perhaps the dream was psi not just about the race but about the outcome of your betting. [/quote]

Yes, that's what I think. It's intriguing to wonder whether, if I had never discussed my dreams with my sister in the first place...the results would have been different. Sean O'Donnell in 'Future Memory and Time' says that this is not a good thing to do as it can mess up results, and I'm inclined to agree.


[quote]Isn't THAT a brain crunching time loop.  The chicken, or the egg?  Can't get one without the other. [/quote]

It is *the* big paradox about precognition based on viewing or accessing the future event isn't it? Getting the brain into that is just too much  :o

The old chestnut along the lines of......would I still be around if I went back in time and shot my grandmother... is similar. Like the dreaded 'loop' in programming :o.  What do we do to get out of it? Maybe we're just missing something.

....You can't really get round it without bringing in other 'universes of probability', and that always seems like an easy way out to me, but of course that doesn't mean it's not the right way..

:-X (I love these 'smilies')
Glyn

Glyn, somewhere around April 4, 2004

Hi Kristen,

Sorry, I missed what you wrote about Theosophy. Well I read 'The Secret Doctrine' years ago but I must confess to not remembering a lot about it now.  I haven't read the 'Invisible Helpers' though, sounds interesting.

What always worries me about these OBE experiences related by others is that without some sort of tested validation it is not possible to separate what is real from what is not.  For instance, in some types of altered state experience you can get what you 'ask for'. Our wonderful minds can create universes for us to interact with; all based on our belief systems and desires, and if we don't become lucid (and sometimes even if we do), we'll never know they are not real....a bit like 'The Matrix' I guess.

That's why, although I am interested in the accounts of others, and I have had what appeared to be OBEs, and lucid dreams, and sleep paralysis experiences, and I speculate like mad about the what and the why of things  ;-).... when assessing my own experiences I tend to stick to the ESP side of 'psi', where there is some physical world feedback; usually  ;).

Kind regards,
Glyn

Kristen, somewhere around April 4, 2004

Hi GLyn,

Right! I agree with you about OBEs and not being able to test them. What lent credibility to the Theosophy expereinces from "Invisible Helpers" was that my prof. had studied Theosophy & would, in fact, "visit" student & then talk to them about it.

But anyway! Speaking of Future memory, I just remembered something that happened when I was a teenager. And I don't mean to bore you with my own experiences. In the end, tho, that's all we know. This falls into the topic of future memory, and left me wondering what sort of interfacing of dimensions had brought it about. Just wondering if anyone else may have had experiences something like it  -  where alternative futures were presented to them.

When I was 9 I should have, by all medical standards, died. It was believed I wouldn't make it, and I rec'd last rites 3 times. I had a near-death experience & was unconscious for 2 wks. The episode left me having to learn to walk again, and the rehab was rough (made bad by ridicule from other children). As the years went on, the thought ocurred to me that "... maybe it would have been better for everyone if I had died".

Suddenly I had a very real, yet very unusual experience. I was shown the whole scenario of what it would be like in that alternative "reality" if I had died. I "saw" that the resulting effects would have devastated my whole family. What I saw was that my mom, who had gotten gravely ill & had to be rushed to the Cleveland Clinic in actuality of what had happened a few years after my NDE - but she managed to pull thru, that in this alternative scenario being so depleted of energy by my death, she herself didn't make it and died. The family then, my three sisters and dad, were left devastated and were never the same. It sort of destroyed something in them, and for me, the viewer of this alternative scenario, it was very very sad to 'witness'. I saw that dad re-married, but the new 'mom' didn't have the feelings for my sisters, and the family was never the same.

The result of this  -  whatever it was  -  this viewing of an alternative future, left me never again considering the thought of wondering if it would have been better if I had died. The thought of my family being left devastated, left me not wanting to do anything that would hurt them.

Here again, this is an untested event. I mean, the only proof I have is my personal experience. But it left me wondering just what had brought this about  ...   Was it someone from the "future"  -  myself perhaps even, or another dimension somehow interfacing with this one ... or a "friend" from the future who gave me that experience of "seeing" the alternate reality  ...  ?  Has anyone else experienced something like this?

And, one more thing, Glyn how did you get the little picture to appear to the left of your posts? How would I do that? It would be kinda fun to have a little signature icon!

Kristen

EricT, somewhere around April 4, 2004

Hey all-

Really cool FM and OBE discussion guys!

Kristen, go into your profile by clicking on the word profile above.  On that page, there is a section called "personalized picture" also known on the net as avater.  Lots to choose from.

Go nuts!  But dont take mine, or it will become angry...  ;)

Eric

Glyn, somewhere around April 4, 2004

Hi Kristen,

[quote] Right! I agree with you about OBEs and not being able to test them. What lent credibility to the Theosophy expereinces from "Invisible Helpers" was that my prof. had studied Theosophy & would, in fact, "visit" student & then talk to them about it.[/quote]
Where there is validation then that's different of course. I don't just write off all OBE experiences as dreams, because there have been experiments where it does definitely appear that there has been out of body travel because there has been real world corroboration. For instance I remember seeing a documentary once where two people met up in the 'ether', so to speak, and when they awoke they described separately to others what they had said/done and there was definite correlation...and there have been many other accounts of such instances. My own sister told me she hovered near the ceiling in the operating theatre when she had a medical crisis....and she tells me she is convinced that it was real, but she has no validation so cannot be absolutely sure, but as you say sometimes that's all you have so you must make up your own mind about it.

Unfortunately I have never been able to validate any of my experiences leaving the body and travelling around though. I just think it is prudent not to just accept our own experiences or those of others at face value, because we may be misinterpreting what is happening, that's all.

[quote] When I was 9 I should have, by all medical standards, died. It was believed I wouldn't make it, and I rec'd last rites 3 times. I had a near-death experience & was unconscious for 2 wks. The episode left me having to learn to walk again, and the rehab was rough (made bad by ridicule from other children). As the years went on, the thought ocurred to me that "... maybe it would have been better for everyone if I had died".[/quote].

What a horrible experience. Children can be so cruel and some adults too. I think there may be alternate timelines, parallel universes, or something along those lines anyway...it definitely seems that there is more to reality than we are aware of...we know that because of RV. The quantum physicists seem to think in terms of other universes.....so we're in good company even if we're all totally wrong  ;-).

I've seen more than one account of very psychically gifted people who have a record of NDE (s) in their past. Maybe because you were so very troubled you just opened up and took a peek down that alternate timeline yourself rather than anyone/anything else having a hand in it.  A bit like people saying that in times of crisis their lives flash in front of their eyes in detail.....only with you it was an alternate life that you needed to see. Glad you did and you're still with us.  ;-)

How did it occur Kristen? A vision?

[quote]And, one more thing, Glyn how did you get the little picture to appear to the left of your posts? How would I do that? It would be kinda fun to have a little signature icon! [/quote].

Go to 'Profile' on the menu at the top of the page and in there at the bottom you can select a personal picture. Just click on a number and choose one you like. I know that some have put in pics of their own, but I'm not sure how to do that.

Cheers for now Kristen,
Glyn

Oops, just seen that Eric has already told you. Don't pinch mine either....it looks just like me....er....... ::)

Kristen, somewhere around April 4, 2004

Hi guys!

Yes, that experience, I guess you'd say that it was a "vision"  -  because I was fully awake. I "saw" the whole scenario with "inner eyes", as if I were there. Yes, strange ...  there could be so many explanations for it  ...  it could have been myself having been so traumatized and maybe sensitized by the experience  ...  or then maybe some kind of interface with  ...  who knows  ...  someone or a future self  ... or another dimension. ...

And thanks Eric & Glyn for the instructions on posting my own icon. I'd like to do an image that I saw in Egypt. I was, for some reason, absolutely captivated by this image when I'd see it on walls there. Funny, but it just felt so very familiar to me, and almost personal, as if I had once seen that image regularly. Then, maybe it was my 2nd trip there, going back thru the Cairo museum I asked my Egyptian guide what it meant. He said it meant "Eternally living son (child) of God", and that it was used by royalty often on their walls.

(Speaking of time (futures & memories), boy I sure had some vivid experiences with interfaces of time in Egypt!)
:o
Anyway! talk to you later.
Kristen

EricT, somewhere around April 5, 2004

This is a bit off topic... but since yer askin...

There are a large set of stock images for you avatar to choose from.  Should you be more picky than that, you can point to a seperate pic at a different location other than the TKR server.  However, there are some things to consider going this route- every time anyone looks at a thread that has a post by you with your new avater, a "web request" will go to the location where your pic is.  So, if you post a pic in say your own personal web space, you are probly fine.  However, on heavy traffic days here you may exceed your bandwidth there.  If you choose a pic that is at some other website... they may not like that.    In fact, I highly recommend against that.

There are a ton of pics already in the kitty there.  Take your time looking through em, you may find one you like!

Eric

oh and btw, Kristin your pic works fine.  As you probly already see...

admin, somewhere around April 5, 2004

Talk about hijacking a thread. :-)

She's trying to post a pic on her website and put the URL in her profile. She can't get it right on her website, so hence, the profile link won't work. She's using an avatar temporarily.

Good to see you back Eric.

PJ

Glyn, somewhere around May 5, 2004

Hi All,

Brace yourselves, it's me on about FM again  ;).

Say psi (of the ESP kind), works by precognition, and more specifically, this happens because we access our own minds down the timeline after we know the result of an event ('event' would also include being given feedback for a practice target), and somehow 'bringing back' that knowledge at session time.

Well, say some really good RVer does a session to locate the whereabouts of Black Beard's buried treasure, and it is accurate and the treasure is dug up. Well, how could s/he access a future memory of something that would only happen because s/he RVed it in the first place? I am talking about linear time here, and our subconscious minds being able to 'roam' in it..I am not bringing in alternative or potential time-lines; that would be too easy  ;-).

There seems to be a great big  paradox doesn't there? The whole thing seems to create a 'loop', the 'What comes first..chicken or egg?' syndrome.

Well, this has been been bugging me like heck, and I've been giving it a lot of thought, and have come up with the following for discussion:

What if it could work because what is accessed *is* a memory. I don't know a lot of how the brain works, but a memory must be formed in arrears of the actual 'happening', even if it is a case of fractions of a second. The complete mental record, comprising all stored memories of all the unfolding stages of an event must only be available in its entirety  *after* that event; and is therefore separate to it, in time and in fact.

So, ....because that memory is not the actual (digging up the loot) event itself, then what if it falls outside the 'loop', because the complete memory itself ('snapshot' of digging up the loot after the event),  has become an event in its own right?

Sigh!....Maybe that's a load of rhubarb, but maybe that is why precognition can work (occasionally ;)), and that we don't have to bring in alternative timelines.  If we accessed our memories too soon, then maybe it either does not work at all...or could be wrong as all stages of  outcome have not been stored?

Does anyone see anything in that?  
Oh well, if nothing else I got the FM thread to the top of the list again didn't I?

::) Glyn

waterway, somewhere around May 7, 2004

.... I am getting a headache again....

:P

I guess time is just our perception of how it works, but what is gonna happen "has happened".  I don't believe in alternate futures or divergent dimensions or any of that.  What will occurs is.  What did occur is.  There is only one path for our brain/experience through reality.

... we can conjecture or imagine other outcomes, but only what really will happen.... really will happen.  The only place here is YOU.  I think the knowledge of everything that will occur to you (and everyone else) is there in your Mind... but you are currently distracted by other stuff you call "now".    When the other features/properties of the future event start to fall into your perceptions... then you will experience the event as "now".

... no.. the headache is still there..... did any of this make sense?  Or have I just muddied the water?

Glyn, somewhere around May 8, 2004

Hi Waterway

[quote]... we can conjecture or imagine other outcomes, but only what really will happen.... really will happen.  The only place here is YOU.  I think the knowledge of everything that will occur to you (and everyone else) is there in your Mind... but you are currently distracted by other stuff you call "now".    When the other features/properties of the future event start to fall into your perceptions... then you will experience the event as "now".

... no.. the headache is still there..... did any of this make sense?  Or have I just muddied the water?[/quote]

Yes it did make sense. The idea of multiple universes/alternative timelines allow us to make sense of things that we can't make sense of otherwise; if you see what I mean, and I have used those ideas myself of course, and probably will continue to ......but they may be just an intellectual exercise, rather than having any 'substance'. What we can probably be sure of is that the 'truth' will be nothing like any of our imaginings.

Sorry about the headache Waterway, it's one of the hazards of making spaghetti out of the neurons.  ;-)

Glyn

Glyn, somewhere around September 25, 2004

Hello all,

Have a look at the video on this page. It is from the Remote Viewing Practicum run by 'Skip' Atwater at the Monroe Inst.

It is long, but well worth watching IMO. It is a good learning experience, and especially interesting to me, from an FM point of view..in that at the end Skip mentions the risk of displacement because of too much information at feedback time. That happens so much to me, especially if I look at other interesting stuff just before a feedback time...and a lot of viewers will probably recognise that has happened to them too.

The session he uses in the video is...well....impressive, to put it mildly.  My skin colour was green when it had finished ;-)

There are a couple of other awesome sessions there too well worth looking at (unfortunately I couldn't see the feedback pic on the last one for some reason.

Some of you have probably seen this before, but I haven't. I was just  browsing. So...in the spirit of sharing and learning I thought I'd post it for y'all to be impressed too.  

The video and other sessions are right at the bottom of the page.

http://satwater.www9.50megs.com/Practicum1.htm


Grins,
Glyn

admin, somewhere around September 25, 2004

We'll have to make sure this thread never dies, so we remember it in the future. :-)

Neat link Glyn, thanks --

The thing about feedback affecting the session seems to be true--but the thing is though, it doesn't HAVE to be true. The more we 'allow' it to be true the more true it is, and the less we allow it, the less true it is, but despite that, it is denying reality to pretend that it does not happen regularly with most viewers, and almost constantly with novice (under 2-3 years) viewers.  So the "it's only true if you believe it" doesn't really work either--I mean that has a basis in fact like "you create your own reality" but there's more to consider I think. It's one of those things that is an 'expected side effect' that a viewer CAN learn to "work against being affected by." But because it IS expected, that's one of the important reasons to stay within a decent RV protocol.  No reason to muck up the process and bring in those problems.

I think sometimes viewers actually train themselves away from focusing on the task and toward focusing on "any possible facet of everything in existence that might have anything to do with the target," by getting a task that has photo feedback to SHOW THE FOCUS OF THE TASK, and then they go out on the internet and spend 2 hours looking up every imaginable thing about that target overall. Then they find that they described lots of things that they find on the web -- but there is no way to know whether they described them BECAUSE they got feedback on them. ;-)  A brain crunch there to be sure...  

That's also one reason why in ops it's fairly critical that if viewers are working on the same things, that they not be getting info on others' session data, because since they lack any real feedback, feedback on what other viewers get to 'validate' theirs becomes, psychologically, their "feedback" whether or not it's called that--it's a protocol problem that can lead to a lot of "matching data" between viewers, which makes everyone think it MUST be true or more accurate but which even if accurate, may not be altogether the most "important or relevent" aspects of the tasking--and there's no way to separate what effect the "backloading" info of "validation-feedback" (as opposed to "literal feedback") has had on any viewer or their data.

A pain to be sure. That's why most viewing in intell needed multiple people on the team for best results.  Partly so they could separate the tasks and keep the protocol clean in that regard.

PS How you doing?  Are you going to do the mission this week?  I swore to try. I fell asleep on the one week before last.  I made last week's literally within one minute to spare, with a wildly creative last second rushed summary, which turned out a lot more accurate than the actual session LOL I oughtta try that more often. (I'm the anon session there.)  I keep promising Benton if he does the tasking I'll view the missions. But I'm so sleep deprived I keep falling asleep in the middle of the sessions lol!

Best,
PJ

Glyn, somewhere around September 26, 2004

Hi PJ,

[quote]
We'll have to make sure this thread never dies, so we remember it in the future. :-)[/quote]
LOL! Well I sort of use it as a storage area for FM observations as well as being a thread...so it won't die even if not used a lot. The thing is, a lot of folks are not interested in my ramblings about FM and this thread is long to wade through. I have lots of stuff on FM here and elsewhere that I'd like to bring together in a better format when I have the time.....Mmmm what I really need is one of those TKR viewer web-pages you were on about in another mail but thought would not be used...hint hint.  ;-)
[quote]Neat link Glyn, thanks -- [/quote]
Yes, it is isn't it? I was fascinated. I really wish I could attend stuff like that...but distance and circumstances don't allow at the moment...maybe one day.
[quote]The thing about feedback affecting the session seems to be true--but the thing is though, it doesn't HAVE to be true. The more we 'allow' it to be true the more true it is, and the less we allow it, the less true it is, but despite that, it is denying reality to pretend that it does not happen regularly with most viewers, and almost constantly with novice (under 2-3 years) viewers.  So the "it's only true if you believe it" doesn't really work either--I mean that has a basis in fact like "you create your own reality" but there's more to consider I think. It's one of those things that is an 'expected side effect' that a viewer CAN learn to "work against being affected by." But because it IS expected, that's one of the important reasons to stay within a decent RV protocol.  No reason to muck up the process and bring in those problems. [/quote]
We don't know whether belief actually causes it but yes it does appear to happen to a lot of us..and definitely to me...we can only try to do something about it. Trying to develop better focus by deliberately 'courting' displacement and then feeding back our displeasure to the sub may be one way... but I'm the sort of person who is so very interested in how RV may work that I get delighted when I see things like that happening...and that doesn't do me a lot of good in trying to filter it out that way  ::).

Personally I find that one of my main 'danger areas' is a period of about 30 minutes across the time of feedback. If I look at anything (even on the television) which is interesting or emotionally stimulating just before feedback then I might find bits of it in my session. Also  if I look at the sessions of other viewers who have done the same Mission target before leaving a reasonable amount of time after I have seen the feedback then I can get the same problem. I am positive it is because my focus in the past, at session time, is too wide or not exclusive enough. It's getting better because the danger period used to be much wider for me in the early days, but it's still too long. OK, to others reading this...I realise this will not make sense, or seem ridiculous or even misguided to those who don't think the same way as me about how psi works...but we just don't know, so have to try and help ourselves in our own ways.
[quote]I think sometimes viewers actually train themselves away from focusing on the task and toward focusing on "any possible facet of everything in existence that might have anything to do with the target," by getting a task that has photo feedback to SHOW THE FOCUS OF THE TASK, and then they go out on the internet and spend 2 hours looking up every imaginable thing about that target overall. [/quote]
Yes, absolutely...doing that can really mess things up, because anything seen that catches the eye because interesting or emotive..could be recognised as having been picked up in the session….bit of a chicken and egg paradox there, but if our timeline is not linear, which I think is so, then anything could happen, and probably does....

However, on the subject of honing focus...if doing a operational type of target with no immediate feedback....like the Mars 'tube' one we had as a Mission, then any feedback we get is not final..not the truth of the matter, because that  (or what is eventually to be perceived as truth) lies in the future.. so we have to 'scan' across time looking for it. If we don't do that then all we will end up with is the photo and other viewers' opinions and speculations..by getting it from their sessions and maybe subsequent discussion. Very interesting, but not what we want..so we don't want focus tight at all in those circumstances because that could lead to picking up information that is partially resolved or a probable...and not the 'end-game'; if you see what I mean.
[quote]That's also one reason why in ops it's fairly critical that if viewers are working on the same things, that they not be getting info on others' session data, because since they lack any real feedback, feedback on what other viewers get to 'validate' theirs becomes, psychologically, their "feedback" whether or not it's called that--it's a protocol problem that can lead to a lot of "matching data" between viewers, which makes everyone think it MUST be true or more accurate but which even if accurate, may not be altogether the most "important or relevent" aspects of the tasking--and there's no way to separate what effect the "backloading" info of "validation-feedback" (as opposed to "literal feedback") has had on any viewer or their data.[/quote]
;-) I should have read that paragraph of yours properly before typing my previous one.. because we said more or less the same thing.
[quote]A pain to be sure. That's why most viewing in intell needed multiple people on the team for best results.  Partly so they could separate the tasks and keep the protocol clean in that regard.[/quote]
Yes, I guess that would be the ideal, but when doing it for fun and interest then we can only bear these things in mind and be aware they could happen. For me, not looking too closely at other viewer's sessions (anywhere) in that crucial 30 minute period over the time of feedback does seem to help…but it is hard because to exclude everything I’d have to drug myself into dreamless sleep. J.
[quote]PS How you doing?  Are you going to do the mission this week?  [/quote]
Yes, I've opened up the Mission but won't be doing it until Monday evening UK time (still a few hours before it closes at US time).
[quote]I fell asleep on the one week before last.  I made last week's literally within one minute to spare, with a wildly creative last second rushed summary, which turned out a lot more accurate than the actual session LOL I oughtta try that more often. (I'm the anon session there.)  I keep promising Benton if he does the tasking I'll view the missions. But I'm so sleep deprived I keep falling asleep in the middle of the sessions lol![/quote]
;-) When I used to do deeper state ERV, solo, with just a voice-activated tape-recorder...I used to end up with loads of disgusting snoring/snorting noises, on a regular basis.
Ye Gods! I am answering this as I read it.....Yikes! You mean that brilliant Anon session on the Ghandi target was *yours*?? Wow! PJ that was really really good!
Mmmm..I suspect that Joe McMoneagle has been giving you private lessons.....Please ask him if can I have some too. ;-). As they say in the UK....Well done mate!!!  

Big Grins,
Glyn

admin, somewhere around September 26, 2004

[quote]I have lots of stuff on FM here and elsewhere that I'd like to bring together in a better format when I have the time.....Mmmm what I really need is one of those TKR viewer web-pages you were on about in another mail but thought would not be used...hint hint.  ;-)[/quote]
LOL.  OK, I get the hint.  As soon as I finish the Task Manager software I'll drop back to the home page/blog stuff. The first is done, except some changes I want to make, the second I hadn't done yet.

Then I have to bring up the dowser's gallery. Did all this work categorizing targets for it. Then realized, whoops, I need a field value that defines 'which map' should be handed over with it, and several other issues. No brain, no pain...

[quote]We don't know whether belief actually causes it[/quote]
No, but we know that belief in anything makes it stronger. I've had plenty of experience with that.

[quote]Personally I find that one of my main 'danger areas' is a period of about 30 minutes across the time of feedback. If I look at anything (even on the television) which is interesting or emotionally stimulating just before feedback then I might find bits of it in my session. Also  if I look at the sessions of other viewers who have done the same Mission target before leaving a reasonable amount of time after I have seen the feedback then I can get the same problem.[/quote]
I usually try to get feedback myself, and then come back some other time and look at all the other sessions, like for a Galleries Mission target.

I know it's my own responsibility to 'hold the focus of validation' to the real feedback.  This even goes for targets that might not have feedback until I am 87 or already dead.  That is a very internal-focus issue, of only 'validating' what is 'real' --and even that, by what standards?  As McMoneagle points out, what is considered truth and factual can change many times (and back and forth) over time.

[quote]bit of a chicken and egg paradox there, but if our timeline is not linear, which I think is so, then anything could happen, and probably does.... [/quote]
Yes it is.  Actually the more I think on the complexity of a non-linear reality, the more I think I should give up thinking and take up something less strenuous. ;-)

[quote]I should have read that paragraph of yours properly before typing my previous one.. because we said more or less the same thing. [/quote]
I agree. When it comes to the Galleries Mission sessions, I'm the first to admit that the 'validation of others' sessions' is probably a problem there for most viewers.  If the tasking were ops I would not be in favor of showing any viewer's session to any other viewer. However, I believe that there are many areas that are important for viewers to get insight into and experience with. And I think it's important for viewers to have a chance to see others' sessions on the same thing, and to be part of the fun of the "group intent" toward a target, and to have a weekly option for stuff which in some cases is a little more unusual or lower on feedback than practice.  So the Mission sessions have several good reasons for existing; but they do, just by nature of being the same target done by a group of people, have the 'validation of others' sessions taken as feedback' risk to the viewers.

[quote]Yes, I guess that would be the ideal, but when doing it for fun and interest then we can only bear these things in mind and be aware they could happen.[/quote]
LOL, now I should have read yours before responding, we just said the same thing.

Best,
PJ

admin, somewhere around September 26, 2004

PS Glyn a secret sneak peek. I'll delete this message in a couple days. :-)  Here's an example of the super-simple template concept I had to let viewers make their own little home pages. There are 14 color schemas, and either sans or serif font. Viewers choose what sections are on the page, whether they have titles and what they are, the text.

They can enter info about themselves; their fave links and define how many show on the front page. They can enter their own docs/articles, as many as they want.  The (coming) blog s/w puts the most-recent entry at the bottom of the viewer's home page if the viewer specs that.  And then the viewer can choose any of their own sessions to link to, and put that section (and however many of its items they want) on the front page, and anybody else's sessions that are their faves (same as above). This would allow viewers to bring together their sessions of any type, including that are done under alias or anon or non-tkr stuff like window sessions.  The blog s/w was planned to let viewers use it like normal but also add links or to link directly to one or more of their own sessions. (The window gallery, both open/personal sessions and window sessions, lets viewers working on non-tkr targets link to their own stuff as well.)
both of these were just my testing.
http://www.sciencehorizon.com/viewers/zEvilOverlord.cfm
http://www.sciencehorizon.com/viewers/nancy.cfm

Glyn, somewhere around September 26, 2004

Hello PJ,

Thanks for the 'peek'! I can see that probably a lot of people would love to have one of those  ;-). Looking forward to it.

BTW...'Mirrors' was really interesting. More than just coincidence I would say. Sounded rather sinister. Has there been any more on it since? Did you ever get Is 'Patrick' still involved with RV?

Your account about the spiders brought a lump to my throat...the last part was sad . I am scared of spiders too,  but like you I would never harm them if I could avoid it because I think that if we willingly cause suffering to something helpless then somehow, somewhere...what goes round comes round.

Whoops I've been here typing too long...gotta go get  dinner ;-).
Bye for now,
Glyn

admin, somewhere around September 27, 2004

Hi Glyn,

[quote]BTW...'Mirrors' was really interesting. More than just coincidence I would say. Sounded rather sinister. Has there been any more on it since? Did you ever get Is 'Patrick' still involved with RV? [/quote]
No more of that particular thing since, no.  I don't know what his current involvement in RV might be.  'Patrick' went on to found the IRVA.  But he is not very 'public' in that regard.

PJ

Glyn, somewhere around September 30, 2004

Hi all,

Here is a really interesting article ...an extract from one of Russell Targ's books 'Miracles of Mind' (which I have not read but will definitely remedy that :-)).

Given the subject of this long running thread and my passion for FM you can only imagine how delighted I was to find within it this passage...

"Physicist Gerald Feinberg thought that precognition was a case of "remembering" your own future mind."

Some of Russell Targs precog experiences recounted in  the passage made me think of those of J W Dunne .  Dunne publised 'An Experiment with Time' back in the 1930s. See the beginning of this thread for information about him and his theory of Serial Time, and how because of the nature of time he believed that  precognition may work because we are able to access our minds/memories in the future.

Better still read the book. 'An Experiment with Time' has been republished as part of Russell Targ's 'Classics in Consciousness' series....and advertised on the right-hand side of this very webpage :-).

Here is the webpage which contains the extract by Russell Targ. It's really interesting, and well worth the read.

http://www.psiexplorer.com/targ1.htm

Glyn

admin, somewhere around October 1, 2004

You can find some interesting reading at Targ's own website as well, try this page:

http://www.espresearch.com/articles.shtml

Benton, somewhere around October 1, 2004

So... how does the mind know that some bit of cognitive stuff is a "memory" and that it happened?

Glyn, somewhere around October 1, 2004

[quote] So... how does the mind know that some bit of cognitive stuff is a "memory"and that it happened?[/quote]

Hi Benton,

In the viewer's future there is a point where the outcome would become a true (past) memory...the target would become a 'known'. Ideally the sub would access that information after the point where there would be no further change...it would recognise a past memory the same way our conscious mind does in everyday life..(we're not totally sure how we do that either  ;)).

The name 'Future Memory' is a little misleading...the memory would always be of the past; the point of access would be in the future...that is the important difference.

This is a 'maybe' of course.....it's a theory amongst many theories of psi. It may not be right, but it feels on the right track to me...others will have different ideas or their own favourite theories  of course. Hopefully one day with people like Russell Targ on the job we'll know for sure.  :)

Regards,
Glyn

Benton, somewhere around October 1, 2004

Wow, this is confusing.

Just ordered "Experiment with Time" by Dunne.

Okay, Your mind knows what thoughts are memories, but how?

I sometimes wake up and in that hypnagogic state have memories of things that happened in my dream world.  Not from that night's dreams, but they are memories of the dream world's past.  In other words, I have a regular dream world that has a history and I guess a future too, but the memories are real but they are not real "here" in the waking world.    In my dreams, I remember stuff from earlier events in the dream world... what is it about those bits of dream related info that make them memories instead of just my imagination?

Glyn, somewhere around October 1, 2004

Hi Benton,

[quote]Just ordered "Experiment with Time" by Dunne [/quote].

Hey that's great! Let me know if you understand the Serial Time theory bits. I confess to being able to understand the concept of 'overlapping' time and serial observers (multiple 'selves' if you like)..so we can perhaps 'see' beyond our own deaths (Yup it gets worse than that  ;-)).. However,  I never could follow his examples/diagrams completely. Actually I don't think he explained it that well......and that's the excuse I'm sticking to!  ;-)

[quote]I sometimes wake up and in that hypnagogic state have memories of things that happened in my dream world.  Not from that night's dreams, but they are memories of the dream world's past.  In other words, I have a regular dream world that has a history and I guess a future too, but the memories are real but they are not real "here" in the waking world.    In my dreams, I remember stuff from earlier events in the dream world... what is it about those bits of dream related info that make them memories instead of just my imagination?[/quote]

Yes I've had those too. Remembering an earlier happening in a dream from within a dream..and sometimes it seems as if the earlier happening was in another dream on a previous night, say. On waking though I've racked my memory and just can't remember having that earlier dream...so it may be a 'fabricated' memory that is part of the dream. Fascinating though isn't it? .

Sometimes though we awake with memories obtained from our future minds that will not be imagination...they will be real, just displaced in time. Dunne's accounts of his precognitive dreams are so fascinating...I am sure you will enjoy that book :-).

Regards,
Glyn

admin, somewhere around October 2, 2004

Hi Benton,

Maybe it's the body. I mean, we may have many futures so to speak, and many lives, many realities, who the heck knows. But our particular body might only have one manifested reality at any given moment. So, when knowing the future is because we are tuning into ourselves, maybe there is some physiological component that helps anchor 'which' viewer of many equally valid we experience.

PJ

blu, somewhere around October 30, 2004

[quote]Hi Waterway,


Yes, it is by 'PreCall Press' in Galway Ireland so it looks, from the name, as if he published it himself.

It is not on Amazon.com, but I am pleased to say that it is still on Amazon.co.uk, so just enter "Future Memory and Time" in the search-engine there.

ISBN 0-9528409-0-1
[/quote]


Hi Glyn :)

Your post helped me finally locate that darn book! I've been looking out for it for a while but then gave up, I didn't think to look on Amazon's UK site ;)


[color=Blue]blu[/color]

Glyn, somewhere around October 30, 2004

[quote]Your post helped me finally locate that darn book! I've been looking out for it for a while but then gave up, I didn't think to look on Amazon's UK site ;)[/quote]

Hey that's great blu. Let me know what you think of it :-)

Glyn

Kristen, somewhere around October 30, 2004

--
On 10/2/04 PJ wrote:    
Hi Benton,

Maybe it's the body. I mean, we may have many futures so to speak, and many lives, many realities, who the heck knows. But our particular body might only have one manifested reality at any given moment. So, when knowing the future is because we are tuning into ourselves, maybe there is some physiological component that helps anchor 'which' viewer of many equally valid

Just wondering what others think of the "many futures" theory. It could be ...  it's confusing to imagine. If so, existence would kind of be like an ever-morphing and changing thing. With each alternate decision made in each 'timeline', things would be altered.

So, for instance, in the case of people remembering past lives or experiences in them in detail, then they'd maybe just be tuning into particular experiences of the many that exist if this were the case.  ...  Maybe because the present life is closely tied to those experiences and those characters in those lives ....  Sorry, I'm just thinking out loud  :).

Take care!
Kristen

blu, somewhere around November 9, 2004

[quote]Hi Benton,
Hey that's great! Let me know if you understand the Serial Time theory bits. I confess to being able to understand the concept of 'overlapping' time and serial observers (multiple 'selves' if you like)..so we can perhaps 'see' beyond our own deaths (Yup it gets worse than that  ;-)).. However,  I never could follow his examples/diagrams completely. Actually I don't think he explained it that well......and that's the excuse I'm sticking to!  ;-)[/quote]

I was lucky enough to find a copy of Dunne's book a few months ago on Ebay, I found the first half of the book fairly easy to understand but the last half had my brain feeling like it was a pea exploding in a microwave LOL

I still don't think I fully comprehend, it's alot to wrap your mind around especially if you're not a mathmetician :)

Why does Dunne say that you should only record your dreams when you are on holiday or are somewhere or doing something that breaks the normal "monotonous" flow of life? Does it really matter that much? You wouldn't have that many dreams recorded then :-/

I thought it was interesting when he decided to do an experiment with books in a library when he was in London, to see whether it would be just as easy to get future info in a waking state as well as a dreaming state.


[color=Blue]blu[/color]

Glyn, somewhere around November 9, 2004

Hiya blu,
[quote]
I was lucky enough to find a copy of Dunne's book a few months ago on Ebay, I found the first half of the book fairly easy to understand but the last half had my brain feeling like it was a pea exploding in a microwave LOL [/quote]
Yes, I know. I'm glad you found those parts hard to understand ...that means it's not just me.  ::). It was written in the early 20th century when language was more 'formal' than now, and there was the maths of course. However, I think some of the problem was that he just didn't explain himself very well.

[quote]Why does Dunne say that you should only record your dreams when you are on holiday or are somewhere or doing something that breaks the normal "monotonous" flow of life? Does it really matter that much? You wouldn't have that many dreams recorded then [/quote]
Probably because it's a bit like in RV...if we find a target novel or interesting then we can do better at it. Not always of course...

[quote]I thought it was interesting when he decided to do an experiment with books in a library when he was in London, to see whether it would be just as easy to get future info in a waking state as well as a dreaming state.[/quote]
Would you remind me of the chapter that was in please blu, and I'll  and have another look at that.
I'm going to order Russell Targ's edition so I can read the book again without  running the risk of the pages in my old  copy falling out ;-).

Generally though blu, what did you think of his idea that somehow we can get access to the memories that we will eventually have of events that will occur in the future; and that incorrect memories and/or distortion can play havoc with precognition?

Regards,
Glyn

blu, somewhere around November 14, 2004

[quote]Would you remind me of the chapter that was in please blu, and I'll  and have another look at that.
I'm going to order Russell Targ's edition so I can read the book again without  running the risk of the pages in my old  copy falling out ;-). [/quote]


You'll find it in chapter 13 page 115 (I have the 3rd edition so I am not sure if other editions have differently numbered chapters?)

[quote]Generally though blu, what did you think of his idea that somehow we can get access to the memories that we will eventually have of events that will occur in the future; and that incorrect memories and/or distortion can play havoc with precognition?[/quote]


I totally agree with the idea that you can access future events/info through dreams, I don't remember Dunne mentioning incorrect memories or distortion though? I do recall him mentioning how to record dreams correctly so that it makes it easier to correctly determine that a dream is in fact a future dream and doesn't have any link to a past waking event, he also mentioned that "no memory is ever aroused unless there is some associated idea which revives it and if that association misses fire there can be no recall".

I read a book a few years ago by Jenny Randles, I can't remember the name of it but she used the metaphor of a pond to explain post and precognition, an event can create ripples that travel backwards and forewards and people pick up on the event through these ripples, waves travelling backward for precognition and waves travelling forward for postcognition, at the time I thought it was a pretty cool theory :)

I was trawling though the newsgroups and someone mentioned a different way at looking at precognition, that precognition can be seen as telepathy with your future self ;-)



[color=Blue]blu[/color]

Glyn, somewhere around November 18, 2004

Hi blu,

[quote]You'll find it in chapter 13 page 115 (I have the 3rd edition so I am not sure if other editions have differently numbered chapters?)[/quote]
I've got the third edition too, but mine is 1964 reprint..well I think it is.. all the dates and chapter numbers are in Roman numerals.

I found the library experiments though..I'd forgotten about them. I have tried that sort of thing in the past, with varying degrees of success. He was good at it wasn't he? Overall I can't help but have the feeling that if Dunne had been born later he would have made a really good remote viewer  :).

[quote]I don't remember Dunne mentioning incorrect memories or distortion though? [/quote]

Right at the beginning (Chapter 6 'The Puzzle'), when he gives his account of his dream of the volcanic eruption in Martinique he gives a good example of what an incorrect (future) memory can do. He had picked up (in the dream), on a memory he had laid down when reading a newspaper report shortly after the event. He misread the number of casualties as 4000 rather than 40000 (and didn't realise that until 15 years later!...bear in mind global communication was not as good 1902-1917 as it is now  :)).

He said, in so many words,  that because his memory was incorrect  that caused the figure to be wrong in his dream. (Interestingly enough, the number 4000 figured so much in his dream that it was almost as if he 'realised' somehow that it would become very significant to him lateron.....but that's my speculation).

I have a memory of standing in the crowd watching the golden coach pass by at the Coronation of the Queen. I was only a (very young :-)), child in 1953, but I have that vivid memory, and can describe things around me and the coach passing from left to right diagonally down the road and me being on my father's shoulders so I could see. Wonderful! I can describe it so well, angle, surroundings, including being in the crowd and the excitement.

My sister told me a few years ago, that I was never there! I was amazed. All these years I have thought I was there. I can only think that over time I had built that memory from 'woven' fragments of information, other people's versions,  probably newsreels, and wishful thinking, until it became solid.........but it was totally false!  

Fairly harmless yes...but think of the implications if I had thought I was at a crime-scene...or witnessed/experienced abuse. It is still there, that memory of being at the Coronation...even though I now know it is totally false. Memories can easily get distorted, and distorted memories viewed from the past produce distorted impressions.

If RV is clairvoyance, and clairvoyance is precognition, and precognition works by our accessing  the record (memory) of something we experience in the future, then we may not always get the 'truth', just the version recorded by us at that point in time...could be spot on, could be distorted, could be totally wrong.

What is interesting to think about is that if Dunne, in his dream, had accessed his memories/record of experience at the much later time when he realised he had misread the original newspaper article (15 years later!), then would he have picked up the 40000 instead of the 4000.....or would the fact that the false memory would still have been there (as is my memory of being at the Coronation even though I know it is wrong..it doesn't not go away) actually 'amplify' the cumulative memories...hence his dream contained so much about the 4000 'false' number of casualties because it was so strong.  Interesting.

[quote]I was trawling though the newsgroups and someone mentioned a different way at looking at precognition, that precognition can be seen as telepathy with your future self ;-) [/quote].

Who knows, it may be. Same sort of idea.

Maybe Dunne will be proven to be completely wrong, but however it works, it certainly *looks* (to me anyway), like future memory, but there must be something else to it....because otherwise we constantly encounter the chicken and egg kind of paradox together with the 'How could Pat Price have viewed something after his death?' sort of thing.

I guess that's where his idea of Serial Time(s) comes in though, because he speaks of being able to see into the future beyond our death. It certainly appears to be something to do with what we think of as Time though.

I'm going on a bit long here, so I will put some of Dunne's thinking about Seriality (of time), in my next mail..
Cheers for now,
Glyn

Glyn, somewhere around November 18, 2004

Hello all,

For those interested, this comes from the end of Chapter 26 of J W Dunne's book 'An Experiment with Time' third edition.

At this point Dunne was talking about his theory of Serial Time and was trying to summarise the ideas behind it:
.........................
"Putting it roughly, then, I should say:

1. Serialism discloses the existence of a reasonable kind of 'soul' - an individual soul which has a definite beginning in absolute Time - a soul whose immortality, being in other dimensions of Time, does not clash with the obvious ending of the individual in the physiologist's Time dimension, and a soul whose existence does not nullify the physiologist's discovery that brain activity provides the formal foundation of all mundane experience and of all associative thinking.

2. It shows that the nature of this soul and of its mental development provides us with a satisfactory answer to the 'why of evolution, of birth, of pain, of sleep, and of death.

3. It discloses the existence of a superlative general observer, the fount of all that self-consciousness, intention, and intervention which underlies mere mechanical thinking, who contains within himself a less generalised observer who is the personification of all genealogically related life and who is capable of human-like thinking and prevision of a kind quite beyond our individual capabilities. In the superlative observer we individual observers, and that tree of which we are the branches live and have our being. But there is no coming 'absorption' for us; we are already absorbed, and the tendency is towards differentiation.

4. Its proof of the unity of all flesh in the Superbody and of all minds in the Master-mind supplies the logical foundation needed by every theory of ethics.

5. It accounts for dreams; it accounts for prophecy; it accounts for self-consciousness and 'freewill'; while in its disclosure of the relations between the general and the individual fields of presentation, it provides the first essential to any explanation of what is called loosely, 'telepathic communication'.

6. It does not contradict either modern physics or modern physiology.

A theory which can achieve all this is not lightly to be set aside."
............................

Think of the similarity to some of the more contemporary ideas of cosmic-consciousness/supermind/Matrix/the Field and theories of multiple dimensions/universes etc (some based on much older ideas).

IMO Dunne was truly a man ahead of his time.  As he himself said...his theory should not be set aside. Especially by modern psi researchers,  because it is old and worn and the language old fashioned and sometimes difficult to understand.. but I have a feeling it has not been  ;).

Glyn

blu, somewhere around February 1, 2005

Hi Glyn :)

I finished reading Sean O'Donnell's book, fascinating read!

In the last chapter he talks about other uses for precall, a couple of things he mentions I am kind of confused about.

The first one is that he says "likewise blackjack seems even more open to direct anti-memory application, though hardly through simple precall of the next card as the inexperienced might at first conclude."

Okay you could say I am inexperienced as I haven't yet tried out his precall exercises but what does he mean "hardly through simple precall of the next card as the inexperienced might at first conclude?" I thought that is how he suggested to do the playing cards exercise? To precall the next card? (i.e. red/black, odd/even, high/low).

The second thing I am confused with is the lottery (page 225).  why does he suggest a 7x7 line grid when each draw is only 1 row of seven numbers?

He also says "at the appointed hour you would now fill in your trial 'winning numbers' as usual -  but now with these selected from some suitably random number source such as your local telephone directory."

So my question is how? Do you pull apart seperate numbers from a phone number (e.g. 42 out of 9467 4285) or do you use the whole phone number? I hope my blabberings have made some sort of sense :P ;) ;-)


[color=Blue]blu[/color]

Kristen, somewhere around February 2, 2005

Hi Glyn Blu & all,

Mention of the book by Sean O'Donnell caught my interest. I did a search on it and thought others of you might be interested in reading a little synopsis. I found this on www.remote-viewing.com/booksmain . Sounds very interesting Glyn! Thanks! I assume you've read it. Did it give you any practical skill in accessing or 'seeing' the future?

Take care!
Kristen

Future Memory & Time -Sean O'Donnell

This book was terrific! It's a self published book and can be purchased directly from Sean in Ireland. If you are interested in the nature of time and memory, then importing this book from Ireland is DEFINITELY worth the effort. Sean puts forth his theory that when we remote view (or use psi, intuition, etc), we actually don't transpond space and time, just time. His data amassed from extensive experimentation indicates that we can only preconceive events that we eventually become witness to. In other words, you can't travel across the universe and see something that you would never be able to see in your life time - but seeing tomorrows stock market closing is easy. It's all about a shift in time - not space. It's an interesting theory and has caused me to reflect upon my own understanding of time, space and remote viewing. If you really want to remote view the future by association, then you must read this book!

Glyn, somewhere around February 2, 2005

Hiya blu

[quote]I finished reading Sean O'Donnell's book, fascinating read![/quote]

Yes, really interesting. Surprisingly heavy little book isn't it (I mean weight as well as content)? It must be the thicker grade paper used.

[quote]The first one is that he says "likewise blackjack seems even more open to direct anti-memory application, though hardly through simple precall of the next card as the inexperienced might at first conclude." [/quote]
I can't locate that one easily blu (gotta dash off to work in a minute)...Please let me know what page it's on.

[quote]The second thing I am confused with is the lottery (page 225).  why does he suggest a 7x7 line grid when each draw is only 1 row of seven numbers?[/quote]

I think he means that using the whole 49 number grid and putting whatever sequence of 7 you are using in their own place each time on that grid, may help the process.

[quote]He also says "at the appointed hour you would now fill in your trial 'winning numbers' as usual -  but now with these selected from some suitably random number source such as your local telephone directory."[/quote]

[quote]So my question is how? Do you pull apart seperate numbers from a phone number (e.g. 42 out of 9467 4285) or do you use the whole phone number? [/quote]

He's talking about practicing precall using 'pretend' lottery numbers there, so using something like a telephone directory opened at random is a good source of long numbers. I guess you could use it how you wish as long as you end up with those 7 numbers. I guess a random number generator 1-49 would be the ideal.

Cheers for now,
Glyn

Glyn, somewhere around February 2, 2005

Hi Kristen,

[quote]Did it give you any practical skill in accessing or 'seeing' the future?[/quote]

I can often see things happening in peoples' sessions/discussions, and sometimes my own experiences,  which, in the light of FM theory, cause me to think...aha! and get a tingle down my back. However.. has an interest in it helped my own RV though? I don't think so. Since I've become interested in future memory I haven't experienced a great upsurge in the accuracy of my sessions. I can sometimes understand why I went wrong...but being able to do anything about it is something else entirely. ;-)

FM theory is just another way of looking at psi, and that includes RV of course. I happen to think it makes sense, and it certainly throws light on such such problems as displacement, and so-called 'retro-tasking' ,and some of the common things we see happening in our sessions. Think of the difficulty holding things in ordinary memory...let alone grabbing hold of future memories and trying to process them with a conscious brain anchored in the present. Phew...no wonder we have problems.  :P

Doesn't mean FM theory is right though....that remains to be seen of course. Many things could be at work. I keep an open mind.

Really gotta go to work now.....white rabbit syndrome setting in!  ;-)

Cheers for now,
Glyn

admin, somewhere around February 3, 2005

Hi Glyn,

Yeah me too (silly wabbit!).

I'm curious, aside from the you-know-it-after-you-die theory, how would you see the 'future memory' concept explaining displacement such as in ARV?  If ARV is done properly the viewer should never be aware of any option except that which turned out to be the target. Or do you mean in ARV where someone shows people the other options? 'Cause that's not part of a standard protocol.

Best,
PJ

blu, somewhere around February 3, 2005

[quote]
Yes, really interesting. Surprisingly heavy little book isn't it (I mean weight as well as content)? It must be the thicker grade paper used.

I can't locate that one easily blu (gotta dash off to work in a minute)...Please let me know what page it's on.[/quote]

It is a pretty heavy book considering it only has approx 240 pages ???

It's on page 224, under the "Rainman" paragraph 8)



I re-read the lottery paragraph a few more times and it's slowly starting to sink in, I'd have to say on the whole, the book was much easier to understand than Dunne's but still not that easy if you know what I mean hehehe

So he rejected the many worlds theory; isn't that also known as the hyperspace theory? It sounded good when I heard it explained on the Discovery channel ;) :P



[color=Blue]blu[/color]

Glyn, somewhere around February 3, 2005

Hi PJ,

[quote]I'm curious, aside from the you-know-it-after-you-die theory, how would you see the 'future memory' concept explaining displacement such as in ARV?  If ARV is done properly the viewer should never be aware of any option except that which turned out to be the target. Or do you mean in ARV where someone shows people the other options? 'Cause that's not part of a standard protocol.[/quote]
If the viewer never gets to know what another option is then it cannot enter memory, and if something does not enter memory then it won't be there to be picked up from the past. Well that's the idea.

People should never get to know when they have displaced!  If they know that then there is bound to be speculation, and that goes into memory..and then there is always the possibility that those memories could be reinforced because maybe more can be gleaned; even in the most subtle of ways, down the timeline...days, months, even years after an event. Reading details of a project they did in someone's book would be enough to do it.

So, if you are a viewer and you have just done such a project and you have just seen your feedback which was not a lot of good, but then been told you've got a really good hit on the wrong picture.. even if you are told nothing else you will probably  be speculating on what it was. Bearing in mind that you are likely to realise that the alternative would be a completely different gestalt, you could form a memory that if accessed from the past would get a match on the alternative picture just by accident! So back at session time which of all those memories (all linked in your mind to the session you are in the act of doing), would you have accessed? The strongest and most interesting to you personally probably...

I'm not saying this definitely happens of course. What I am saying is that in order to be certain that FM does not play a part in displacement then we need more than anecdotal evidence.. controlled experiments need to take place. They may have been done already, however they would not be of any use to most of us because to be water-tight no detailed reports could ever be published..for the reasons outlined above. What is important is that we don't need to prove FM is a factor.....we need to disprove it...prove the negative.  ;-).

One way of trying to do this could go something along these lines....  Select two pictures of sufficiently different gestalt...say a mountain and an ocean, and task one of the pictures to one or multiple viewers..say the mountain. After receiving the session(s) then only feedback the other picture..of the ocean. Never let the viewer(s), *or anyone*  know of the experiment or that an alternative picture even existed. If the viewer(s) gets the feedback and not the tasked picture then it means future memory is a possibility (but does not prove it because it could still be telepathy..or something else). However..if the viewer(s) hits the real target sufficiently accurately, then it cannot be future memory...don't know what it would be actually, but definitely not FM  :). Do this hundreds of times with different viewers and get really bored and ...and never tell anyone or publish your results just in case the viewers ever get a clue.

Then try and eliminate telepathy by doing the whole thing again double-blind.  

Does that make sense? No? Time for me to stop waffling then.  ;-)

Grins,
Glyn
BTW....If FM is involved in RV then when doing a session pay attention to your 'confidence factor' about the session. Cos if FM plays any part at all then up in the future you will also have formed memories of whether you did badly or did well. Paradox? You bet it is. I love this stuff.  ;-).

Glyn, somewhere around February 3, 2005

Hi blu'

[quote]The first one is that he says "likewise blackjack seems even more open to direct anti-memory application, though hardly through simple precall of the next card as the inexperienced might at first conclude."

Okay you could say I am inexperienced as I haven't yet tried out his precall exercises but what does he mean "hardly through simple precall of the next card as the inexperienced might at first conclude?" I thought that is how he suggested to do the playing cards exercise? To precall the next card? (i.e. red/black, odd/even, high/low).[/quote]

Mmmm, I see what you mean. Maybe it's how the game is played that caused him to say that. Say you have been dealt two cards and your total is less than 21. You need to know what the next card you are about to draw will be so you don't go above 21 and 'bust'. However, you also need to know what the dealer is holding and what his next card will be..in case he ends up beating your total.  

Would probably be easier to learn card-counting.  ;-)

Regards,
Glyn

blu, somewhere around February 4, 2005

[quote]
Mmmm, I see what you mean. Maybe it's how the game is played that caused him to say that. Say you have been dealt two cards and your total is less than 21. You need to know what the next card you are about to draw will be so you don't go above 21 and 'bust'. However, you also need to know what the dealer is holding and what his next card will be..in case he ends up beating your total.  

Would probably be easier to learn card-counting.  ;-)
[/quote]


Wow that's a good way of looking at it! I think I must be wearing my thinking cap backwards LOL ;-)



[color=Blue]blu[/color]

Benton, somewhere around February 8, 2005

[color=Red][size=4]Whoohoo!  Let the dancing begin![/size][/color]

Okay, so I am at the Rhine Center working with my Audio-visual homies getting the place ready for Friday night, and the library is where the bulk of the McMoneagle event will occur.  I am setting there taking notes and I look up and I notice the spine of a book and it says "Future Memory".  I think.. "what is that Glyn up to now...?" and walk over and pull it off the shelf.  Its by PMH Atwater, and not the Sean O'Donnell book I am craving.  "Dash it all!" I exclaim, which of course worries the rest of the AV posse.... but I put the book back on the shelf and think to myself "I sure wish this library had that O'Donnell book cuz I can't easily and inexpensively get my hands on it otherwise" and go back to my wiring and documentation work.  So later in the evening I have to go back down to the library to work on a sound check kinda thing, and while I am standing there waiting, I look up at the shelves of hundreds of books, I am on the other side of the room now from the PMH Atwater book, and I just randomly reach up cuz I am still thinking how I want to find that O'Donnell book which I am thinking is like a regular old book about an inch thick and all.  Then I notice this thin booklet between two other books and I think "I wonder what this is, since one of my favorite books is also a little booklet just like this one so I suppose lots of great books are small things like this so I gotta look at it" and I pull it out and WHAMMO! its the O'Donnell book "Future Memory; The theory of repressed Pre-call".  

So I chalk it up to another weird coincidence where listening to my intuition pays off.

Now all I gotta do is finish Paul Smith's book, get back into Dunne's book, and read O'Donnell's book and finally I can understand better what the heck you people are talking about!

Life is good! ;)

Glyn, somewhere around February 8, 2005

Hey that's great Benton!  ;-)

The title of that O'Donnell book is a little different to mine. If you get the chance would you please check out the publisher and date (and ISBN Number if there is one)...I'm interested to see if it is a different book, or just a different title. Thanks.

In the mid-sixties Sean O'Donnell studied parapsychology under J B Rhine.

Dr O'Donnell talks in his book about how the future may be fixed ..unless consciousness enters the equation (Chapter 10).

IMO that echoes with quantum theory ideas about the act of 'observation' being important. Interesting thought and maybe would get around a lot of the paradox associated with FM.

Thanks Benton,
Cheers for now,
Glyn

Benton, somewhere around February 9, 2005

Glyn,

I don't have the book here with me... I will check that out.  Its a little booklet, 1/4 inch thick, yellow paper cover, lots of charts and lists inside.  It would be a hoot if its not the right one....

blu, somewhere around February 10, 2005

[quote]I don't have the book here with me... I will check that out.  Its a little booklet, 1/4 inch thick, yellow paper cover, lots of charts and lists inside.  It would be a hoot if its not the right one.... [/quote]

This is what my copy looks like, sorry the pic isn't the best but my scanner doesn't seem to like this book for some reason...

http://www.boomspeed.com/collage/seanodonnell.jpg


[color=Blue]blu[/color]

Benton, somewhere around February 10, 2005

Thanks for the picture.

The booklet I have is 7x8 1/2 inches.  It has a pale yellow cover, front and back.  It has no ISBN.  It is 46 pages.  It has the copyright character on the inside cover next to the year 1976 by Dr. Sean O'Donnell.  It contains an introduction and seven sections, starting with "The general theme" and concluding with..well "conclusions".  The cover has in bold letters across the top "FUTURE-MEMORY" then below that "The Theory of Repressed Pre-call".  There are some charts, then in smaller letters across the bottom, "A NEW APPROACH TO THE PROBLEMS OF INTUITION, PRECOGNITION, AND TIME."

Glyn, somewhere around February 10, 2005

Hi Benton,

[quote]The booklet I have is 7x8 1/2 inches.  It has a pale yellow cover, front and back.  It has no ISBN.  It is 46 pages.  It has the copyright character on the inside cover next to the year 1976 by Dr. Sean O'Donnell.  It contains an introduction and seven sections, starting with "The general theme" and concluding with..well "conclusions".  The cover has in bold letters across the top "FUTURE-MEMORY" then below that "The Theory of Repressed Pre-call".  There are some charts, then in smaller letters across the bottom, "A NEW APPROACH TO THE PROBLEMS OF INTUITION, PRECOGNITION, AND TIME."[/quote]

Thanks for that Benton  :). My copy looks the same as blu's, and the date is 1996. I should think this is perhaps something O'Donnell published for the original presentation of his theory. Interesting.

Hope you have a great time at the Workshop!!! Please tell us all about it!

;-)
Glyn

blu, somewhere around February 11, 2005

[quote]I should think this is perhaps something O'Donnell published for the original presentation of his theory. Interesting[/quote]

I agree with Glyn here, it sounds like you have stumbled across one the first booklets on his precall theory, it would be interesting to compare his early ideas in this booklet to his recent book :)



[color=Blue]blu[/color]

Benton, somewhere around February 13, 2005

Well that's kind a bummer since I wanted the real deal.  But since this is what I have... this is what I will read and keep looking for the later book.  I guess the Rhine Center gets lots of books gathered over the years, and stuff sent by publishers.  It looks fascinating, none the less.

end of messages

[END Topic 176] Future Memory and RV TKR Remote Viewing Forum September 2003