Topic [217] Warcollier & how we draw TKR Remote Viewing Forum December 2003

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

waterway, somewhere around December 4, 2003

I was wandering the halls of the local community college where I teach a web-page design class, and noticed that there was a display of the paintings of one of the continuing education classes lined up on the wall.  It was a beginner oil or acrylic class, and there were the common seascapes and farm houses and such, all very nice.  As a kid I drew little comics and spent so much time drawing, my family and friends would often say "You should do this professionally".  So I took oil painting lessons with a local artist and did my seascapes, bowls of fruit and farm houses.  From there I realized I could never be a professional artist.   But I started to notice in my art that I drew and painted pieces of the picture I was trying to create.  I guess my art would be considered "Impressionism" cuz it shows my impression of reality on the canvas.  If I drew a face, I drew it in parts, and measured the parts to be in the right places, and if I was careful, it looked something like I was supposed to be drawing.  But in my comics especially, I drew a torso, attached an arm, attached a leg.... etc.  Then I'd look at it and say "That is a person".  Hopefully, others would too... :-/

So standing there in the hall, looking over these paintings and thinking... I realized that in Warcollier's research, what seemed to get "viewed" was often just those parts... the torso here, the leg over there, the arm over there.... often "out of context".

My point is.... could we gather a better understanding of how RV works if we had a better understanding of how the mind works as it draws or paints?  PJ, I know you have "issues" with your art.... but maybe this may help.

I am not an art expert (viewing my drawings would tell you that), but have any of you read research on how the brain works while art is being created or perceived?  Mr. Swann is an artist... has he written on this subject?  

Anotherdreamer, somewhere around December 4, 2003

Some times in comparing my own drawings of RV targets and comparing them to the photo, I have noticed a shift of view.  Almost as if I had been drawing a reflection..  PS here...I just recently begun drawing them so I am not a seasoned remote veiw drawer.


About ten years ago I had the pleasure of visiting with an artist from Northern California.
Her gallery had an array of styles. But, one picture fascinated me on a deep level.  I stood looking at it for quite some time. Although the colors and theme were similar to the others, this one held me. The artist stood beside me and asked, “What are you thinking?”

“I don’t know.  There is something different.  I can’t place it.  Is this the same artist?”

“Yes,” she said. “I painted all of these. But, you are right.  This one is different.  I did this one while taking a class called painting from the right side of the brain.                         “ (It could have been the left side. I don’t remember)                    ‘I had no idea what I was painting during the class.  When we finished, the instructor turned the picture upside down and this is what it was.  I couldn’t have been more surprised.”  

The picture was of a beautiful American Indian woman standing in a forest.  

waterway, somewhere around December 4, 2003

Excellent insight...scuze the pun... but I think I am gonna dust off the ol' "Drawing on the right side of the brain" book.  I know there is thread or two around here on that topic, I will re-read them as well.

intuitwolf, somewhere around December 14, 2003

From Ingo Swan's "Everybody's Guide to Natural ESP: Unlocking the Extrasensory Power of Your Mind."
In it he discusses the pathways of ESP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Any information derived psychically from the second reality by the deeper self is first processed as imaging. Later in the chain of interpretation, the images are 'translated' into the language the individual normally uses. . . All the evidence points to the fact that when you are first trying to contact your own basic ESP core, it is more progressive to undercut the difficulties imposed by languaging, and allow the basic imaging processes to provide the first and most natural work."

"As I mentioned earlier, parapsychology is a higly verbalized science. While many of the targets parapsychologists use are in pictorial form, the subjects' responses are normally given in a language form. Subjects are asked to describe in words what they are 'seeing.' They are hardly ever asked to draw their responses. This is standard procedure in parapsychology, but most of the researchers cannot see that it forces the subjects to doubly process the psychic information they are getting. Once the basic image-laden psychic infomation leaves the psychic processes of wording, the mind enters into the response. A great deal of distortion and misrepresentation can and does take place while the mind seeks to translate the basic images into words."

"The well-developed psychic intuitively learns to release conscious wording in favor of perceiving basic images. With experience, the mind will learn how to integrate ESP information into its workings, and then wording will become easier. But if the basic imaging nature of the psychic is dropped out or ignored, as is so frequently the case, the individual will have a very difficult time in adequately experiencing ESP at its most basic level."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The same book also contains some very interesting material on sketches and how to look at what you've sketched to get a better idea of where you are at in your development of contact with the ESP core. By learning where you are at and how it feels when you are there, you will assist the conscious mind in allowing increased contact with that core.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Basic ESP is not different than any other human talent. Few of us can execute any talent easily at first. The pole vaulter cannot possibly clear the eighteen-foot mark until his entire system has learned to collaborate with the task. But he will never do it at all if he thinks that it is impossible, or that he has no pole-vaulting talent. It is only with practice that the various components of the system can come into phase with each other. The same is true for all sports, and performing arts as well."

"In my opinion, one of the greatest disservices to extrasensory perception is the fact that is has never been studied and compared with **other** human talents. It has always been thought of as such an astonishing thing that it's organic elements have not even been looked for. This has lead to the expectation that ESP either appears full-fledged or it is not there at all. "

"This is patently not the case. ESP is there, even if at a low stage, a stage so low that it does not get through the pathway."

"If your first attempts do not produce any recognizable ESP information, just take a deep breath and try again, or maybe wait for another day."

"As you gain in practice, you will discover that the psychic information pathway is very soft, if not mellow, in feeling, and you will learn which information to trust and work with. You will also begin to get a good idea of just how spontaneous the psychic information can be."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Aside from no information getting through, there are seven general hurdles that need to be kept in mind. I made a list for myself in 1973, and they are still applicable for every beginner."
[Inserted comment: I have omitted some commentary in the list to shorten it.]

1. Instances in which you will not get the object at all or even any part of it. Instead you'll get objects surrounding it.

2. Instances where you have replaced the the object with something it reminds you of. This type of 'mistake' is actually very common. With practice, you will soon be able to recognize, internally, when this is taking place.

3. There will be instances in which you get a lot of drawings or marks or words which do not make any sense to your consciousness. They will not 'go together' properly to make a recognizable picture drawing. Ingo refers to this as 'lack of fusion'. You get all the elements, but they did not fuse into an appropriate form. Lack of fusion frequently happens when the target is too complex. It tends to disappear after the ESP core becomes capable of handling complex information.

4. Sometimes in your drawing or writing (if there is any), you may have sketched the object quite well, but have called it something other than what it is. This happens when the conscious processes do not recognize the sketch, but are determined to call it something anyway.

5. Portions of the target are perceived, such as details but not the whole, or the general outline of the target, but not the details.

6. Often you will get only one part of the object while the remainder of it is not perceived.

7. Other times you will get a good correspondence to the ojbect, but there will be some distortion.

When none of these hurdles is blocking the pathway, many of you will experience instances of indisputable correspondence between your impressions and whatever the concealed object is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

Ingo also had a list of common characteristics of ESP picture drawings that he found when he studied examples (a great many of which are in the book). He says the list is not complete and you could probably add to it, but suggested that you use it when studying your own results.

"Don't just mentally compare, but actually write out next to each element the type of phenomenon it represents. This allows your conscious system to learn. As your core learns to cope with each of the many manifestations of it's raw talent, you will see patterns emerge."

Four general categories:
1) Error Contributions
     a) Some other thoughts that have nothing to do with the target or experiment.
     b) No contact or correspondence at all (barriers).
     c) Illusion or imagination.
     d) False guessing, or just guessing.
     
2) Associations:
     a) Not the object itself, but things associated with it or, in some cases, things that might be expected to be associated with it.
     b) Associations of feelings, etc.
     c) Something the object (or location) reminds you of.
     d) An image of something similar to the object.
     
3) Lack of Fusion
     a) All parts are correctly perceived, but will not connect to form a whole.
     b) Some parts are fused; others are not.
     c) Fusion is only approximate.
     d) Parts are incorrectly fused; all parts are there, but put together in such a way as to falsely create another image.
     
4) Accuracies
     a) Correct, in all aspects.
     b) Correct, but some distortion.
     c) Correct, but something else added.
     d) Correct, but some information missing.
     e) Correct, but information developed through two or more attempts.
     f) Only part or parts perceived.
     g) Details perceived, but not the whole.
     h) Correct relationships perceived.
     i) General idea correct.
     j) Correct, but overdeveloped.
     k) Correct, but elements reversed.
     

waterway, somewhere around December 26, 2003

Excellent excerpt from the book.  I will have to put that one on my ever-growing reading list....

It again points at the need for practice, for a multitude of reasons... good reasons....  

waterway, somewhere around December 26, 2003

Alright, I gots a question. :-/

What is the difference between Mr. Swann's two books, [color=green]"Everybody's guide to natural ESP: Unlocking the Extrasensory Power of your mind"[/color] and  [color=blue]"Natural ESP;A Laymans guide to unlocking the Extrasensory Power of your mind"[/color]

They have different ISBNs, but darn similar titles....

waterway, somewhere around December 28, 2003

Still eager to learn the difference in those two Swann books.

But back on topic, I was reading Russell Targ's 1994 paper on [color=Green]PSI, Sight and Awareness[/color]

In discussing Robert McKim's book [color=Blue]Experiences in Visual Thinking[/color] Dr. Targ comments:

[color=Maroon]"McKim's book makes it convincingly clear why artists are often our best psychic subjects.  They are not necessarily more psychic than the rest of us; however, they have much greater control over their visual imagery process, through which almost all psychic data are mediated."[/color]

admin, somewhere around December 28, 2003

Targ isn't a doctor/PhD, just a note of trivia. He has a few misc. docs on his website for those interested, http://www.espresearch.com

Research suggests (I am told, haven't a ref off the top) that men often do better with sketching targets and women with verbalizing information about targets.   I find that interesting.

In an RV Oasis interview with Joe McMoneagle, when asked what % of psychology he thought related to psi talent, he said, "all of it."  Recently you posted notes on his comments in a lecture where he suggested that if a person truly KNEW they could view, they could; this seems to go back to the psychology thing.  Perhaps the real issue isn't teaching people how to RV but teaching them how to stop-stopping psi in their overall life.  Perhaps we are already carrying such filters that most of our efforts toward both doing and understanding need first for us to figure out how to remove some of those filters.

PJ

Gene_Smith, somewhere around December 28, 2003

PJ,

I have real respect for your opinions in this area, but for the life of me I just can't buy the if you think you can then you can.  If this were true then then the best viewers would be the ones who most believed they could do it.  Where I think that is shown wrong is by the numerous individuals some self deluded, some insane, who waft into these boards from time to time talking things like "I've always RVed just didn't know what it was called" etc etc.

I think real world experience in this field shows that two things seem to make one a good viewer; one is raw talent the other is practice.  I just don't buy that J. McMoneagle is good solely because he knows he's good or somehow thinks he can more than most anyone else on the planet.  As I said above there are all manner of would be gurus and egomaniacs who would claim their abilities with this, but when you look at real world results it is the people who practice and commit themselves to this the most that seem to be the best.

Now part of the problem here in arguing this can be you could just say, well he DOES believe he can do it hence he can.  It reminds me a bit of the name it and claim it faith movement one can witness in some Christian circles.  Now let me state emphatically I am not accusing you of being one of them nor anything like that; I'm just using one of their arguments for illustrative purposes.

Basically the argument goes if you have true faith God will make you well, rich, married to a beautiful person, just fill in the blank etc etc; then He will do it.  If you don't have what  you want or are sick or poor etc then you clearly just haven't claimed it with proper faith.  CRAPOLA!!!

In a sentence I believe what makes one good in this field is talent and hard work.  Yes non belief can affect one and even provide results like psi missing for a period of time, but in the end doing it over and over and over is what will bring you results.  Will this get rid of psychological barriers, sure.  But I'm saying that getting rid of the psychological barriers is not the primary thing that makes the person better at it.

Gene

waterway, somewhere around December 29, 2003

[color=Blue]Targ isn't a doctor/PhD, just a note of trivia.[/color]

When I proof-read my post I noticed I put the Dr. in front of his name and questioned myself "Have I ever seen him referred to as Dr.?" and then worried about being wrong... but not enough worry to actually look it up.  Looks like I should have gone with my intuition to check.

Regarding believing and being, it seems Gene is right in saying that practice and skill improve RV, but I think PJ makes a strong point in earlier posts where she stresses the need for practice to establish "knowing" in the RVer, for to do RV you have to know you can RV.  

Practice and doing make it real, and I think practice and doing change your mind.  

Back to visuals.... Mr. McMoneagle described his RV sessions as working with lots of "meaningless" raw data, and holding off interpretting as long as possible.  In my own better RV events, it was from visual images, simple shapes I saw in my mind's eye, that were the most help.  I kept going back to the well for more simple shapes or impressions, using them for "ideograms" or anchors to the actual tasked picture.  In my closed eyes I see a spiral.  I draw a spiral, and go get other images.  I see a circle, I draw a circle.  I keep this up and later go back to my pictures, to that collection of simple shapes, and say "What is that?"  The circle is a moon, a planet, a sphere in space.  Its not a pie, its not a wheel, its not a cookie.  The spiral is something in space too.  I look at the task feedback, its a spiral galaxy photo taken by a space-based telescope.  

Again, working with visual info seems to be a great boon, and that process seems to be common in CRV and ERV.

admin, somewhere around December 29, 2003

Hiya Gene!  Oh goody, I love disagreement.  How can we have any decent discussion if we all agree on things?  It's about time we found something to disagree on.  I'm sure if we keep looking we can find all kind of things.  Myopic blockhead!  Ahem.  I'm just practicing for the REALLY good disagreements, of which this is probably not one...

[quote]there are all manner of would be gurus and egomaniacs who would claim their abilities with this[/quote]
I think the problem here is english, as funny as that sounds.  Our language is profoundly lacking a lot of important words.  One way in which this shows up, is when you start talking about belief/knowing.  

There are different levels of believing/knowing.  There is the commonly accepted meaning of these words, which is where your average dreamer "knows" they are great at RV because they have no discretion, experience, critical thinking or other forms of knowing-better.

There is a deeper level of knowing that is more along the lines of 'the fundamental psychology that drives the creation of our reality'.  These are the kind of 'belief systems' that are core to the person.  Not the wandering whims of the conscious mind but the primal shapes of the person.  These are not defined by wants. These are generally defined by the formative experiences of the person (and most of them, or at least their pattern, when we are really young).

[quote]but when you look at real world results it is the people who practice and commit themselves to this the most that seem to be the best.[/quote]
Absolutely.  Because we are all from a species-culture that (even in cultures more open to psi) entrains us from birth to reject and ignore psi, and to narrow our 'operational parameters' to the physiology.  This is a primal, formative thing.  Every one of us runs into this when we start doing RV seriously.

These core belief systems are so profound that ONLY constant, consistent, with-feedback ("proof") experience in someone's life can begin to change their shape.  It's working against a lifetime of formation and subconscious habit.  The more talent one has, the more quickly and to greater degree one sees daily 'proof'; the more discipline one has for regular practice, the more one can be wearing away at that fundamental belief system like water against stone.

McMoneagle sounds nearly obsessive about practice in most of his writings because he (and others) seems to believe that only consistent practice in a proper protocol (I mean situation, not method) will truly modify the level of belief system we are talking about.

Mel Riley, who was in the stargate program for awhile early on and then came back later during the CRV era, has an interview coming out for RV Oasis soon, where he talks about how critical is the viewer's own belief in themselves and their ability to view.  Again, he's not talking about some WISH that many uncritical and/or unbalanced people will carry as what they believe, that is just surface stuff; he's talking about the core psychology of a person that only the "doing it" can truly bring into a shape of 'real' belief and finally 'knowing'.

[quote]in the end doing it over and over and over is what will bring you results.  Will this get rid of psychological barriers, sure.  But I'm saying that getting rid of the psychological barriers is not the primary thing that makes the person better at it.[/quote]
Well, assuming we are talking about--as I outline above--a core level of psychology here, and not your average new age "oooh, I believe psi is real!" conscious belief, then this is where our opinions diverge.  

I feel the fundamental/core beliefs of pretty much all humans, as formed by our experience from birth onward (and often minute by minute), suppress, exclude or filter psi as an innate and constant part of one's life.  

I feel that these core beliefs are the primary thing changed by constant practice in protocol.  And I feel that the way this can actually be seen is by the increase in psi across the board in the life of someone consistently doing RV.  In protocol of course; this doesn't tend to happen if they are working in any fashion that allows the subconscious an 'out' or alternate excuse for success.  But one can see the 'barriers' to psi on core levels start to fall and psi experience start to roll into the life on a regular basis; to me, it isn't about believing in RV, it's about directly experiencing psi for which there is no alternative explanation, often enough over a long enough period of time that the models in us set up against it start to change.  That affects RV profoundly but it affects the rest of the life profoundly too.

Some of this may be a fairly major difference that you and I have in our interpretation of RV as well, you know.  We've talked about this somewhere on this board haven't we?  

Some people separate 'psi' and 'RV' because they didn't experience psi before or outside RV, and so to them, psi is one thing and RV is another or at least a super specific instance of it.  They will say they can RV but they aren't psi.  This is incomprehensible to me.  Interestingly I hear this a lot from people used to working out of a science protocol (meaning people who work monitor informed a lot) but not from people who work double blind constantly.  I think it actually changes WHAT core belief systems are affected, and to what degree, how one chooses to pursue RV.

I don't separate RV from psi or from any experience or or application of psi except in protocol and practice, arbitrary issues when compared to an innate human quality.  I feel psi IS innate in every person, as Ingo Swann talks about in his many online papers.  I feel it's not really teaching someone "to" be psi so much as teaching them ways in which they can relax the barriers, recognize the filters, and allow a little of it in... a little more all the time as their confidence grows... and as, eventually, core belief systems, faced with daily incontrovertible proof, begin to change.

Your turn.  You have to come up with a better name than me though.  It's really hard trying to come up with something insulting that is not offensive if that makes sense.  This is an art in itself. ;-)  (Unless I have failed, in which case I'll have to apologize.  Augh!  I hate that.)

PJ

Tigr50, somewhere around December 29, 2003

Hi PJ:
Long time since I've een here, but I agree that there is no difference in psi and RV, just a difference in how you handle the information.  I am an artist also, by profession, and understand that this is what I might call subtle information from the unconscious--which comes out in a pleasing or meaningful form, if one is trained in technique and allows personal style to integrate with that.  It's like another form of psi or RV, with disciplines of its own.  Sometimes, I find myself doodling.  

Someone here mentioned spirals--circles--which always indicate for me, a desire to integrate the Self.  It is a wholesome, therapeutic doodle, a Morse code from the unconscious; a dot dash dot for "lets get together."  That's what Jung might say, and that's what I have found, by experience to be true.  I say, whether you can draw or not, pay attention to your doodles!  They are like the first ring of the phone indicating information is on its way.
Cheers
Deb

Gene_Smith, somewhere around December 29, 2003

Hello P.J.

A name calling contest ehhhh?  Well I do not wish to participate.  There is a real difference between simple ignorance and willfull stupidity and I'm not going to fault you because of something you've been led to believe, even if it is tripe.  Besides that I've had it up to here with all the names everyone else calls you behind your back when you're not here; many of those people have no idea what they're talking about.

OK, now that I've gotten on your good side  ;)..  You are using exactly the argument I mentioned in my Christian faith example.  Meaning that people who just float into these rooms saying they know they can do this stuff don't really really believe it down inside, else if they did they would be able to do it better. That is circular reasoning.  "The people who are good at RV are good because they REALLY believe they can and those that aren't don't really believe it deep down inside else they would be better RVers, hence knowing one can is the key criterion for RV success" or so the argument goes.

If knowing that this can be done was the primary criterion for success then there would be areas of the world, where psi is totally accepted, that would be producing RVers by the hundreds of thousands who would all be capable of putting J. McMoneagle to shame, after a short demo of what columns to use for what data.

Now does J. McMoneagle know he can do this?  Absolutely yes.. Why? Because he's done it for one.  But to make the jump that BECAUSE he believes he can is the reason he can is almost enough to move you into the willfull catagory and we all, well not all but some of us, do not want to see this happen PJ.  This is for your own good so think about it s l o w l y.

There is a phenomenon that is seen in many fields, that being that once a person steps into what is considered to be the pinacle of their profession they will take a leap in their work and live up to the title or job.  Mr. Clinton was able to resist the urge though, so it's not universal.  But back to my point in this, yes confidence will aide a person in their performance but it is NOT the causal factor.  Of course I could be wrong in this, but I don't see how cause I really really really believe it.

Gene

EricT, somewhere around December 29, 2003

Hey Gene-

I think you bring up some good points, but I am not certain that ruling out the believing part is necessary.  I think it can be a causal factor, but, that there are alot of other causal factors as well.  

If there were only one thing needed to RV, you are right, there would be alot more of us around.  Will/intent, natural ability at psi, work ethic and a whole goddam lot of practice seem to me, to be bigger causal factors.  BUT, if a person doesnt believe in part of it, it can take them all the way down regardless of the others.  I prefer to think of these things not as boosting your ability, but getting past them in order to clarify your ability.  I think of them as limiting factors.  Anything that contributes to doubt will ruin a person, in any field.  And lets face it, alot of things can contribute to doubt!

Interesting thread.  Keep up the good thinking.

Eric

admin, somewhere around December 29, 2003

[quote]Besides that I've had it up to here with all the names everyone else calls you behind your back when you're not here; many of those people have no idea what they're talking about.[/quote]
ROFL!  That was great!  Oh that wins for the morning, although waterway chewing off his foot to toughen up did make me laugh out loud.  I think that even beats out my previous favorite insult, which was, "I am remote influencing the people I hate to act like total jerks so other people will hate them too.  So far it's working really well!"

[quote]That is circular reasoning.[/quote]
You have a belief system in operation here that is opaque to you I think.  What you are doing is rejecting the idea that humans have a fundamental psychological makeup of belief systems, beyond/below what our conscious beliefs are.  It is like you are a 'rationalist' where everything in/of a person is related to the conscious mind.  If that is all there were, then you would be right that it is circular, but I believe there is more to a person.

If our conscious beliefs were all there was to us, then a person who has been abused in childhood, or raped at any time, could just look at themselves in the mirror and go, "I'm okay and you're okay and gosh darn it I'm a good person!" and there you go, no more psychological problems.  You could take someone fundamentally insecure or abandoned as a child and shake them and go, "Hey you're 30 now, the past is past, you're smart and cool," and they'd be just fine.  The fact is, the level of "belief systems" we're talking about here are fundamental psychological constructs that cannot be compared to the surface fluctuations of our conscious mind.

I studied and worked in hypnosis for many years, so I may be biased; I have a sincere belief in a "mental model/belief system" that underlies each person, and which may in fact be completely contradictory to what they THINK they believe, but they don't "know themselves" in the aware-of-self sense.  I believe there is conscious thought about what one believes, and then there is the subconscious form of what one really believes, at a core level.  When I talk about a person's belief systems I'm not talking about their conscious thought.  That does also gradually change with RV but that doesn't make a person a viewer.  I am talking about core concepts in the person, which enable or disable their ability to be open to psi across the board.

[quote]and those that aren't don't really believe it deep down inside else they would be better RVers,[/quote]
I know what you mean about this. I once attended a church as a kid where everybody was supposed to start speaking in tongues when the preacher put his hand on their head and if they didn't, it was a sign that they had  not deeply enough accepted jesus into their heart. Yay-uh.  Boy you never heard so many wannabes in your life.  Now talk about hypnotic modalities... but that's another topic.  

[quote]there would be areas of the world, where psi is totally accepted,[/quote]
Doesn't exist.  There are areas where psi is recognized but the 'fear of psi' is profoundly prevalent everywhere, even in those cultures, say the few people who have studied and written on this topic.  The very practice of any culture that uses words instead of psi to communicate, trains a filtering of psi into people.  Everytime mamma says it's ok but she's upset, or anybody has a thought they don't verbalize, the list is endless, is one more training lesson to the baby who is defining its reality by its parents' world, to ignore the psi stuff, you aren't supposed to know that stuff, listen to the physical stuff, believe what I say, not what I think.  This exists even in cultures familiar with psi, and many of those cultures MOST familiar with psi, are frankly terrified of it besides.

[quote]Now does J. McMoneagle know he can do this?  Absolutely yes.. Why? Because he's done it for one.  But to make the jump that BECAUSE he believes he can is the reason he can is almost enough to move you into the willfull catagory and we all, well not all but some of us, do not want to see this happen PJ.  This is for your own good so think about it s l o w l y.[/quote]
LOL.  I think maybe I should deviate into a discussion on the true meaning of will, that would improve this conversation... no but really.  I agree that it was only DOing it that caused McMoneagle to KNOW it at core levels, which in turn "as it developed" is what allowed the skill to grow and end up wherever it is now.  I do not think it is probable--perhaps impossible in our current human cultural state--for any person to be a great RVer with no effort just because they believe it. Most people can do real well at first but that's where the core beliefs then kick back and they crash for quite some time, unless consistent practice starts dragging their butt out of it and opening up those core beliefs to allow it.  

So I am not saying that anybody can walk in, say 'I believe it!' and be great at it.  I am saying that it takes massive consistent practice in protocol to eventually get the core belief systems to the point where one "knows".  As those belief systems change, so the experience and skill improve.  I believe it is the change in beliefs that allows the skill to improve, but I believe it is the consistent practice that allows the beliefs to improve, so you cannot get to the knowing without the practice.

[quote]don't see how cause I really really really believe it.[/quote]
lol.

PJ

admin, somewhere around December 29, 2003

Eric's insult ability really sucks today doesn't it.  Where does he get off being so reasonable?  He managed to agree and disagree a little of both with everybody, what kind of politically correct diplomacy is that?  Man.  Waterway I think we should send him your foot, just the foot, to make him better understand just how SERIOUS we are about things here.  

We are so serious that I'm not sure lesser mortals are actually qualified to share this discussion with us.

I should probably be writing all my opinions as formal publishings so nobody has the opportunity to question me, now that I think about it.  It won't be discussion, it will just be The Way, The Truth And The Light.  Then all those insipid unbelievers like Gene will quit baiting me!

Do you suppose if I deleted the posts of everybody except my people I would seem more popular.  Can I do that?

PJ

EricT, somewhere around December 29, 2003

[quote]Eric's insult ability really sucks today doesn't it.  Where does he get off being so reasonable?  He managed to agree and disagree a little of both with everybody, what kind of politically correct diplomacy is that?  Man.  Waterway I think we should send him your foot, just the foot, to make him better understand just how SERIOUS we are about things here.  
[/quote]

Er... what else would he send me, besides the foot, that you insist he not??? NO, wait... dont answer that.

[quote]
We are so serious that I'm not sure lesser mortals are actually qualified to share this discussion with us.
[/quote]

Oh yeah.  Well, since I am so omni... science.  present.  er, smart n stuff.  Yeah.  I will have the discussion with you.  Its okay PJ, I allow it.  Carry on.

See, by not insulting you when you do expect it, and being silly when you dont... I have you all thinking I'm harmless.  Hehehe (rubbing hands together) and when you aint looking, I will ever ... so... slowly... pull the RPG launcher from my guitar case...

oh drat.  Now I ruined your surprise!

Seriously though, WW, er... keep your foot.  Chop it off, put in a jar... at YOUR house.

The hell was this thread about, anyhow?

;)

Eric (not the Eric posting like crazy over on HRVG board.  ahem.)

admin, somewhere around December 29, 2003

[quote]Eric (not the Eric posting like crazy over on HRVG board.  ahem.)[/quote]
Now there's an Eric who knows how to be a real pain in the butt I see--he could probably charge for training, dontcha think?  He is wonderfully obnoxious, I almost like him.  Not as much as I like Ed M. though, who in a post I just read in the CRV archives this morning called someone a name so insulting I can't even repeat it, but let's just say it'd get the feminists in a serious food fight.  Except CRV doesn't have liberal feminists last time I checked.  Well they did, but one of those remote desert ceremonies Gene once mentioned took care of that, LOL.

Back to the topic of this thread.... I find that my sketching ability is increasing.  That is to say, that with regularly RV practice, my ability to sketch tiny portions of the target accurately, is increasing alongside my ability to sketch tiny portions of the target inaccurately.  If I were really omniscient I would know which was which, right?  All this, and you want accuracy too?!

PJ

energycritter, somewhere around December 29, 2003

[quote]Someone here mentioned spirals--circles--which always indicate for me, a desire to integrate the Self.  It is a wholesome, therapeutic doodle, a Morse code from the unconscious; a dot dash dot for "lets get together."  That's what Jung might say, and that's what I have found, by experience to be true.  I say, whether you can draw or not, pay attention to your doodles!  They are like the first ring of the phone indicating information is on its way.
Cheers
Deb[/quote]


Howdy Deb

You may be referring to someone else’s post, but, I did mentioned circles on the thread regarding ideograms. I often feel as if something is trying to come through, so to speak. I usually end up rendering what I call Zen circles as a way of allowing the energy of the moment to flow somehow, even though I do not render anything of any use.

As far as it being a self integration thing, that makes sense. I will consider that more thoughtfully as I attempt to render whatever it is that I am feeling flow in me when it happens.

I have been tied up with indirect non-self issues and self sacrifice for almost two decades now and I have recently been collecting many means by which to try to develop “self” in areas of personal interest. In a few more years I will be able to spend more time on “self” and I look forward to the results, I guess….I hope the results are worth the effort…..who knows….LOL

Playing the politically correct good guy game and being diplomatic and all of that nice and friendly stuff has its place in life when raising a child, but, my child is in college now. It is about time for me to break out of all of that “make others happy” stuff and find out who the hell I really am. I know who I am in regards to those that have benefited from who I have been, but, who am I, for me…and what the hell do I want?

No regrets about who I have been, but, I miss me, I think, how would I know, I really do not know me anyway….LOL

Back to the drawing board….I mean, scribble board….

:)

ec

Tigr50, somewhere around December 29, 2003

Hi back, ec:
I haven't gone through your life experience by a long shot, but the integration of the Self with the rest of the personality is a lifelong goal for me.  I was thinking that the next time you start drawing circles, try drawing a mandala.  Add things to the circle.  You might start seeing a message, or a feedback of a feeling by making it manifest on paper.  I go through periods of just doodling trees or birds or horses or whatever--although I know the circle doodle well--very soothing, usually.  whenever I doodle or sketch I take into consideration  the symbolic meanings in the objects, and I think they help me understand where there needs to be an emphasis for balance.  I think that balance is necessary for the RV stuff, because I have to be so impersoanl with that--just see whatever is there.  Sometimes things are violent or personally offensive, so art is a kind of knitting the psyche back together for me.
Good to read your posts!
Cheers
Deb

wizopeva, somewhere around January 6, 2004

Well PJ, even if it is as you think, I still think it would be circular reasoning.  Basically, we seem to observe a correlation between confidence and good quality rving.  We have no real evidence of a causal factor though.  One could cause the other, the other could cause the one, or it could be a third factor causing both.  

Scientifically, you can't just take this correlation and use it to assume that all those who don't rv well necesarily can't rv well cause they don't believe in themselves.  It could be that the don't believe in themselves cuz they don't rv well.  In fact, we don't even know if maybe some of them DO believe in themselves but still can't rv, cuz we haven't studied it.  We just have no evidence of even some of these basic facts and either argument, that one caused the other or that the other caused the one, could be supported by some of our same unscientific observations thusfar.  It's a basic scientific tenent that correlation does not imply causation, especially when we have no data to indicate which event occurs first in time.  

Now sure, I think the correlation is an interesting one, even if it's observation is so far still rather unscientific and biased.  And I also think that the theory that confidence is important seems like a good one and that PJ is probably right that there are subconscious factors at work that are hard to define.  However, I'm not quite sure if confidence is likely to be the whole entire picture either.  
-E



You have a belief system in operation here that is opaque to you I think.  What you are doing is rejecting the idea that humans have a fundamental psychological makeup of belief systems, beyond/below what our conscious beliefs are.  It is like you are a 'rationalist' where everything in/of a person is related to the conscious mind.  If that is all there were, then you would be right that it is circular, but I believe there is more to a person.

admin, somewhere around January 7, 2004

Perhaps you're right.  The real problem is that there is no way to actually 'see', like a medical diagnostic, what somebody's "subconscious belief system" is like.  We can ask them what they believe, but people's conscious ideas about what they think are often at odds with what they subconsciously believe, weirdly!  So as you point out, there is actually no way to 'test' this... I'd say, because there is simply no way to SEE this.

I still believe--my own belief system--that much of reality is created by the fundamental belief systems of the person, though.  Making it so that technically, their reality reflects whatever those are.  This isn't about what someone 'believes' on a conscious level, but rather a much more fundamental level of operation.  Hence, I believe that changing things requires changing what a hypnotist might call 'core belief systems'.

But, that's just my mental framework for the moment, and like anything else it's subject to change when something with better evidence--or just more interesting -- comes along! ;-)

PJ

wizopeva, somewhere around January 9, 2004

One example of hidden belief systems I think pertains directly to rv.  McMoneagle has said that things like fear of psi and fear of success often play a role in one's skill level.  But many people don't believe they have any such problem.  However, when someone is first learning rv and they make that first big fat homerun session, you can see that fear in their eyes just about every time.  Sure they are excited too, but it's not the same kind of excitement that you have when you are 5 and opening birthday presents.  This kind of excitement is mixed with a freaked out look.  They are both excited and scared.  I was the same way.  Maybe a lot of that fear comes from the realization that rv could change everything, and that entails a mighty paradigm shift.   After a bit, the new viewer settles down a bit and deals with the shock.  But still, I don't think that fear just disappears after that first time.  Instead I think it marks the beginning of a subtle battle with that fear each and every time you view.
-E

waterway, somewhere around January 9, 2004

Eva noted:

[size=1][color=Red]"... After a bit, the new viewer settles down a bit and deals with the shock.  But still, I don't think that fear just disappears after that first time.  Instead I think it marks the beginning of a subtle battle with that fear each and every time you view. "[/color][/size]

Its a toughy.  Transformation is a pain.  At Mr. McMoneagle's talk the other week, he mentioned the attrition rate of the Stargate viewers and it sort of scared the crowd.  We've talked about this before, that RV can lead to enlightenment or burn-out or spontaneous combustion.... metaphorically speaking...

Its dangerous sure.  You have reason to be afraid.  When I have a close brush with my tasked event... I still get that [color=Blue]HOLY SH!T[/color] reaction.  I mean.... its scarey!  -)o you realize the implications?  Wow...!  But I sort of calm myself down... cuz fortunately I am at the same time trying to reduce the influence of my ego... and I turn to my Gandhian teachings and promise myself that even if I become omniscient, I will still be nice.... still be compassionate...  and go with the process.... so some of my fear dissipates from that.  

.... at least, that's the plan.  

waterway, somewhere around January 9, 2004

.... and speaking of Warcollier.... have any of yall read the book [color=Green]"Why we see what we do"[/color] by Purves?

It really sounds like this author has a lot to say on things related on how the brain works with images.  I heard a guy talking about it the other day and lots of stuff he said sounded like stuff Warcollier mentioned.  I am gonna get a copy and I will report back.  From what they are saying (as discerned from reviews), these guys believe that our brain has a library of visual pieces that it applies to ambiguous visual input.... a library of "things" that it assigns to the things we see.  

What if this library is the library our brain uses in RV?

wizopeva, somewhere around January 10, 2004

Waterway, yeah could be something like that.  There definitely seems to be some sort of file drawer effect in which past experiences are dredged up during a session which convey info about the target.  Sometimes I think of things in a session that I haven't thought of in years!  It sorta weird feeling when that happens.  
-E

waterway, somewhere around January 11, 2004

Eva says.....
[size=1][color=Red] "Sometimes I think of things in a session that I haven't thought of in years!  It sorta weird feeling when that happens." [/color][/size]

I get that stuff too.  And often it happens just driving down the road or sitting and reading.  Memories just drop into consciousness with no OBVIOUS connection to what is currently happening.  

It makes me wonder, where do "original" ideas come from?  Where do new and spontaneous thoughts come from?  If you shut off the "stream of consciousness" in your thoughts, or get to that "no mind" state, where do these new springs sprout from?  

I get the feeling the ancient Hindu "psychenauts" already did a lot of this research, but I am impressed how, as I get more and more into RV and meditation, that I can discern different "mind" processes... they "feel" different.  Its kinda fun.

admin, somewhere around January 12, 2004

[quote]these guys believe that our brain has a library of visual pieces that it applies to ambiguous visual input.... a library of "things" that it assigns to the things we see.  What if this library is the library our brain uses in RV?[/quote]
I was given this model by a friend eons ago related to RV, except in my case the context was that the library is composed of personal experience.  

It's no secret that viewers often do quite well on targets of a topic they are familiar with.  When McMoneagle was describing the Russian sub all those years ago (one of the infamously overtold stargate stories), I really don't think he'd have nailed the 32 missile tubes or whatever it was, and tons of other amazing detail, were it not for being an expert on weaponry--and having trained in shipbuilding of all things.  I think him having enough diverse experience for 10 people's lifetimes has to contribute something to his viewing skills.

I notice that often in targets with elements I've never experienced, I will get something "through" what I HAVE experienced.  Or I will get symbology of something I have experienced, trying to explain it to my mind.

Now I wondered about this.  I have seen a guy in space for example.  So I wondered, why do I have to get symbology for the helmet, and for 'space'?  Why aren't those as obvious to me as stone or water?  Since I SAW the feedback pic, and have seen other pics like that, why doesn't my mind have that in its library?  Why is some other play--even pun--on "space" or someone with a black helmet necessary?  Why not just show me the bleeping target, if my mind's gonna be so visual?

Well, when my mind HAS that symbology from personal experience, it does seem to.  On a recent target, although I'd already got the idea of pool of water in several ways, I had a very clear visual of being underwater and looking up at the top, seeing the light on the surface.  But then, I spent a lot of time under water in pools and ocean as a kid, so that's in my experience.  

I think for some reason, SEEING something in a picture isn't enough.  It has to be a personal experience before it ends up in the library so to speak.

The Biogram Theory holds that the body creates biochemical that mirrors all external experience with an internal form of experience via the biochemical.  A visual experience would not qualify for this unless the person were in a 'suspension of disbelief' mode where that experience affected them close to as if it were happening to them.  I wonder if the internal body experience of 'being there' (experiencing something, even if seen, but in person) somehow 'imprints' on this theoretical internal library.

I don't believe it's the same for everybody.  (Unless you want to get cosmic and say all experience ever existing is in one pool.)  I think it varies by person.

Which makes ya wonder if RV, in a way, is not a bit like writing, where LIVING novel-ly, with new experience and ideas, contributes as much to the overall effect as the work itself does.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around January 15, 2004

PJ,

Could you reprint or point to your writings on the 7 kinds of visual perceptions you work with?

Thanks.

I am finding, frustratingly, that the best info I get is a fuzzy, obscure "visual".  Clear pictures of things are wrong.  Verbage is mostly wrong.  I can tell the useful visuals from the useless.... I am still new to DOING RV, so maybe this will improve or change or both.

But a little more insight (pun intended) would help.

Thanks.

blu, somewhere around March 2, 2004

[quote]From Ingo Swan's "Everybody's Guide to Natural ESP: Unlocking the Extrasensory Power of Your Mind."
In it he discusses the pathways of ESP...
"Aside from no information getting through, there are seven general hurdles that need to be kept in mind. I made a list for myself in 1973, and they are still applicable for every beginner."

<SNIP>
....2. Instances where you have replaced the the object with something it reminds you of. This type of 'mistake' is actually very common. With practice, you will soon be able to recognize, internally, when this is taking place.
<SNIP>
[/quote]

Hi everyone,

I am going to risk looking silly and put this question out there.

I am kinda confused about number 2 ; now correct me if I am wrong but doesn't that refer to symbolic data? If I may borrow a quote from a post of PJ's from the Introduction topic (page 3) where she says

[quote]
... Just like with dreaming, your mind is going to present things in ways that you can't usually predict, and may be symbolic. [/quote]

So is Mr Swann saying that getting data symbolically is wrong? Or does he just mean when you decide to name the object instead of just describing it?  Or am I just off on a weird tangent and should go and have a little nappy byes? ;-)

Please somebody end my confusion ;-)

[color=Blue]blu[/color]

Glyn, somewhere around March 2, 2004

Hello blu

[Quote]I am going to risk looking silly and put this question out there. [/Quote]

Not a silly question at all blu, most important I think. I can only speak from my own experience, but I get a lot of symbolism in my sessions, (much to my extreme frustration). Misinterpretation and symbolism are two different things, but it is hard to tell the difference sometimes IMO.

For instance there is plain old 'mistaken identity' and AOL....eg the target is a hosepipe and the viewer morphs it into an elephant's trunk, ....then adds the rest of the elephant and goes on a safari  ;-). That sort of thing anyway.

Then there is the pure symbolism. For instance, recently I did a session to try and pick up what team would be the winner of the US Superbowl (not RV actually, as I was fully frontloaded, but it illustrates my point), and I had the impression of a big bird, an eagle to be exact.... and I thought of an American Eagle.  The American Eagle says 'patriotism' to me. OK, it may have been coincidence, but the Patriots did win ;).

In another very short practice session I did recently, I felt myself moving along flapping my arms like a bird. The target was a parrot sitting in a tree. Not quite pure symbolism, not quite pure misinterpretation, sort of a mixture. I think my subconscious mind was trying to convey a 'bird' concept rather than being accurate to the target, and as I was doing the sort of exercise where I judged between two pictures before seeing final feedback I was able to choose the right one.

Symbolic impressions are next to useless sometimes, especiallywhen all I want are perfect clear clean impressions of the actual target (In my dreams  ;-)), but they come into  their own for 'answering' certain kinds of questions or conveying ideas where anything more specific may be difficult to interpret.

I don't think there are absolute rights and wrongs in RV, it's down to what works for us as individuals. In the end it's results that count. If we can spend the time to try and get used to how our own minds work in the psi situation (lots of practice)  it could help us a lot IMO.

Hope that helped a bit.

Kind regards,
Glyn

Fire, somewhere around March 5, 2004

[quote]I don't think there are absolute rights and wrongs in RV, it's down to what works for us as individuals. In the end it's results that count. If we can spend the time to try and get used to how our own minds work in the psi situation (lots of practice)  it could help us a lot IMO.[/quote]
I agree totally with that.

RV can be very 'experiential'... in ways that I never suspected, for a long time.  You can interact with elements at the target, on a psychic level. I never knew that... I was astonished.  I think there is a lot more depth to the experience than is commonly realized. I also think that in some respects, the standard methods just by nature of being a step by step plan with a focus dominantly on the plan not the personal experience, may shift the focus away from such things.  I know often, if I told someone what happened in a session they'd think I was a nut, yet it was valid data.  I guess we all just get it in our own ways.

PJ

wizopeva, somewhere around March 7, 2004

For instance there is plain old 'mistaken identity' and AOL....eg the target is a hosepipe and the viewer morphs it into an elephant's trunk, ....then adds the rest of the elephant and goes on a safari  ;-). That sort of thing anyway.

LOL, that's a rather good description of one of the potential traps.  This prob is often called "castle building."  (for any newbies that might not yet be familiar with terminology)  That's a main reason behind the rv idea that it's good to try to describe more and think less.  



In another very short practice session I did recently, I felt myself moving along flapping my arms like a bird. The target was a parrot sitting in a tree. Not quite pure symbolism, not quite pure misinterpretation, sort of a mixture. I think my subconscious mind was trying to convey a 'bird' concept rather than being accurate to the target, and as I was doing the sort of exercise where I judged between two pictures before seeing final feedback I was able to choose the right one.

Actually, it's not particularly unusual for a viewer to experience a life form directly as if the viewer sort of becomes the life form.  One time I viewed some kind of undersea spongelike lifeform and during the session I kept thinking of just grabbing up stuff and stuffing it into my mouth, LOL!  In some ways, it can be really cool, but there have been instances when viewers got too sucked into the target and had traumatic experiences.  It seems like this is more likely if the target is a human.  We've been talking a lot about this on one of the rv mailing lists.  It seems like some viewers just don't tend to go that route whereas others have a tendency towards it.  

I've had it happen myself a couple of times.  In the most memorable experience, I got sucked into this person at the target site that happened to be a huge jerk.  For several hours after the session, I myself was basically a huge jerk.  Looking back on it, it was a weird experience.  I was emailing rude stuff but as I wrote it, I thought it was just both humerous and near genious in it's inventiveness.  I thought I was the coolest thing ever, LOL!  

Another part of me was just barely able to suggest I not send some of the worst stuff and in a way, I knew something was a bit off.  But since I wasn't totally me to start with, it was hard to think like me.  But I worked to shake it off and later on, I felt more like me.  By morning, I was sort of shocked that I had thought like that and noted that my 'genious' posts were both stupid and rude.  I was EXTREMELY relieved I had not sent the worst of them off.

Because of that experience, I began to pay a lot more attention to how sessions effected me and how I felt after a session.  I also used to have a rule that there would be no emailing shortly after a session, LOL!  Sometimes it was just as simple as my left brain not being fully awake yet after a session and causing me to not process logic too well.  

Since those times though, I think I've gotten better at being able to keep a certain distance between me and the biologicals at a target site.  I still like to get info on biologicals, but it also seems I've been able to keep the side effects to more of a minimum.  It's been a while since I've gotten too sucked in like I did in the beginning.        


Symbolic impressions are next to useless sometimes, especiallywhen all I want are perfect clear clean impressions of the actual target (In my dreams  ;-)), but they come into  their own for 'answering' certain kinds of questions or conveying ideas where anything more specific may be difficult to interpret.

I think that's exactly right.  There are times in ops when a physical description is either not needed or is not going to answer the whole question.  For instance, with employee screening, you don't need to know what the employee looks like.  The client already knows that.  You are mostly needing concepts and personality traits.   If a machine is not working, you might want not only a description of the broken part, but also in order to narrow it down, you might want to know what function the part serves.  Or maybe the fault lies in the software or compatibility between components.  We so often see sessions that show physical objects and their descriptions, but that is only part of the story.  A smart tasker chooses viewers that best fit the situation at hand and the situation sometimes calls for less tangeable concepts.    


I don't think there are absolute rights and wrongs in RV, it's down to what works for us as individuals. In the end it's results that count. If we can spend the time to try and get used to how our own minds work in the psi situation (lots of practice)  it could help us a lot IMO.

Yes, I have to agree in ops, the emphasis should be on accuracy and useability of data.   To get to that point, I think you are right that it requires a strong emphasis on learning about yourself and how your unique unconscious mind communicates with your unique conscious mind.  Much of that communication will also be unique to you.  
-E

blu, somewhere around March 19, 2004

[quote]One time I viewed some kind of undersea spongelike lifeform and during the session I kept thinking of just grabbing up stuff and stuffing it into my mouth, LOL!  In some ways, it can be really cool, but there have been instances when viewers got too sucked into the target and had traumatic experiences.[/quote]

I did a session where I felt ill, this was the first time I ever felt like that, I really felt ill but I knew I wasn't sick but felt that I was? Hard to put into words :)

I found out from the feedback that the target was the eruption of Mount Vesuvius

Would you call that bi-location?



[quote]I don't think there are absolute rights and wrongs in RV, it's down to what works for us as individuals. In the end it's results that count. If we can spend the time to try and get used to how our own minds work in the psi situation (lots of practice)  it could help us a lot IMO. [/quote]

Very true, but also frustrating most of the time ;-)

Thanks Glyn, Fire and Eva,  your posts were very insightful  :)


[color=Blue]blu[/color]

wizopeva, somewhere around March 19, 2004

I did a session where I felt ill, this was the first time I ever felt like that, I really felt ill but I knew I wasn't sick but felt that I was? Hard to put into words :)

I found out from the feedback that the target was the eruption of Mount Vesuvius

Would you call that bi-location?

From your description, I can't think of any obvious reason why you would feel ill for such a target.  The only way to figure it out might be to continue practicing and learning about yourself.  For myself, when I first started viewing, it seemed I would often feel kind of ill and tired during a session.  I think it was just hard on me because I wasn't used to it yet.
-E

blu, somewhere around March 20, 2004

[quote]From your description, I can't think of any obvious reason why you would feel ill for such a target.  The only way to figure it out might be to continue practicing and learning about yourself.  For myself, when I first started viewing, it seemed I would often feel kind of ill and tired during a session.  I think it was just hard on me because I wasn't used to it yet. [/quote]

Hi Eva :)

I guess I should have typed the whole target specific in my last post, which was The eruption of Mount Vesuvius and the destruction of Pompei, Herculaneum, Italy (circa 24 August 79AD).


[color=Blue]blu[/color]

admin, somewhere around March 22, 2004

I had that target in a really huge pool.  I didn't have long for the session which was too bad, as it stands a chance at being a real depth target.  My focus was the eruption of the volcano, the destruction of pompeii, and the woman and child archeologists later found together. This is three sessions more than one, so that was the first problem--the tasking sucked (my own fault).

Anyway, it was a little fun, as the first data was being really high above the land and flying up and out and over the land, coming down, toward a seashore.  Visuals that are 'fuzzy' and have more concept attached than detail and have the sense of 'flying over' are always accurate for me, in my experience.  I was only just starting to get into the focus when I had to end the session.  I think I have another copy of that target in the pool somewhere, so I hope next time it comes up I have time for a decent session.

blu, viewers may often 'feel' what is at the target in any number of ways and forms.  That is just one of many ways of resonating with it and getting info.

Bilocation is a term that suggests a momentary sense of being totally and completely "there" at the target site (for that moment, not aware of oneself at the viewing point).  This can happen into locations or into identities, for me it's usually the latter.  Super brief but super vivid as well.

Best regards,
PJ

blu, somewhere around April 10, 2004

I finally got a copy of Mind To Mind and have just finished reading it, the psychology terms were a bit hard to understand though ???

On page 3 of this topic a couple of people talked about how the mind's "library of information" is used / works when Rving...I thought it was interesting how Warcollier put it into words;

"it is the impact, I believe, of the unconscious forces from within the personality of the percipient (receiver) upon the target, whether the target be a person or a drawing or a thing, that activates memories and associated feelings within him.  The nervous energy that is then brought into play may revive whole areas in the unconscious of the percipient on the finge of the specific unconscious image of the target itself.  It's as if a self activating stimuli had been set off so that the first impact brings further chains of reaction and patterns of experiences involving intellectual and emotional components.  These experiences originate in normal perception, for without the memory of prior experiences,  the telepathic impression would be unrecognizable and meaningless.  It is only within the realm of the percipient's experiences that we can understand the telepathic message.  He must draw upon his organised patterns of feeling and thinking to give meaning to what arrives from the unconscious."

Another point that got my attention is his thoughts on "mental contagion", how people who work together in a group can accidentally contaminate each others' thoughts...does anyone have any experiences of this happening? Apparently you can be miles and miles away from the other people in the group and it can still occur...spooky ;-)


[color=Blue]blu[/color]

blu, somewhere around April 10, 2004

[quote]

Anyway, it was a little fun, as the first data was being really high above the land and flying up and out and over the land, coming down, toward a seashore.
[/quote]


PJ,

I got the same kind of feeling/data in the first page of the session as well! I saw a balloon with different colours flying in the air which I figured was an AOL  :P ; and towards the end of the session I saw a beach :)


[color=Blue]blu[/color]

blu, somewhere around April 26, 2004

[quote]Alright, I gots a question. :-/

What is the difference between Mr. Swann's two books, [color=green]"Everybody's guide to natural ESP: Unlocking the Extrasensory Power of your mind"[/color] and  [color=blue]"Natural ESP;A Laymans guide to unlocking the Extrasensory Power of your mind"[/color]

They have different ISBNs, but

darn similar titles.... [/quote]


I don't know if anyone replied to this question...

It looks like "Natural ESP;A Laymans guide to unlocking the Extrasensory Power of your mind" was the original edition and was printed in 1987, and  "Everybody's guide to natural ESP: Unlocking the Extrasensory Power of your mind" is a reprint of the 1987 book and was printed in 1991.  The original book has 216 pages and the reprint has 218...hmmm don't know what the difference is between the 2 extra pages though...

Hope that helps ;)


[color=Blue]blu[/color]

blu, somewhere around April 26, 2004

I know that there has been a slightly heated debate  ;-) about the psychology of psi, whether you need to believe it exists to get results or not...I was looking through the archive section on New Scientist website (newscientist.com ) and found an article pretty relevent to this debate and thought I would put the first couple of paragraphs up here for anyone interested.  (can I get sued for putting the whole article up?)


[color=Purple]Finding evidence for the paranormal is easier if you believe it exists. Believers are happy to accept this, but to sceptics it smacks of chicanery. Is this parapsychology's final battleground, asks John McCrone


IF YOU have ever had that creepy sensation of being stared at from behind, then you know what some of the subjects in Richard Wiseman's lab are feeling right now. Sitting in a soundproofed room with their skin wired up to an arousal monitor, they know that for some of the time someone may be staring at them via a CCTV link. The question is: are the subjects subconsciously aware of when they are being watched?

Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire in Hatfield, UK, doesn't think they do. He's been doing experiments like this for years and he always gets nish, nada. But his co-worker, parapsychologist Marilyn Schlitz of the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, California, begs to differ. When she does the experiment, she usually gets a slight, but significant, positive result. And so the two have set out to resolve the discrepancy in a head-to-head showdown.[/color]


If anyone wants to find this article, New Scientist lets you go through their archived articles for 7 days for free if you register with them to use it, the article is called "The Power of Belief"  (vol 181 issue 2438 - 13 March 2004, page 34).

P.S.  Is there a record for most consecutive postings? ;-) ;-)


[color=Blue]blu[/color]

waterway, somewhere around April 27, 2004

Excellent post [color=Blue]blu[/color]

If the experimenter thinks PSI exists, significant positive results.  If the experimenter thinks PSI is hogwash, significant negative results..... hmm..... wonder why that is?  

Well in both cases, the experimenter is being rewarded and later sits around with his/her buds slapping each other on the back saying "See, we were right all along... "

admin, somewhere around April 27, 2004

[quote]Well in both cases, the experimenter is being rewarded and later sits around with his/her buds slapping each other on the back saying "See, we were right all along... " [/quote]
LOL.  Yup.  Though I suspect it's not always as clear as 'pass or fail', and I suspect that like with viewers, it isn't always about what the conscious mind thinks or wants; there may be a lot more subtle and subconscious issues.

I notice in other areas that a lot of people are not clear on what the difference is between 'experimenter effect' and the 'DAT' stuff, so just for kicks I'll say something here.  I am NOT an expert on either of these things and I suggest people look up the articles on journal websites and lfr.org/csl/ and jsasoc.com websites.

Experimenter effect (EE) was coined when it was noted that experimenters seemed to get results more in alignment with their beliefs, positive vs. negative. However there's a further subtlety, where some experimenters also seem to have a 'knack' for having subjects do better for them than subjects did for other experimenters.  (I compare this to HRVG's theory about tasking numbers and "cue-ing", and feeling that sometimes one 'cue-er' tends to see better results from viewers than another.)  What is thought to have been 'affected' is the subject's results (accuracy), as if something unknown the experimenter is DOing (psychically? physically? hard to be sure) is the effect.

Decision Augmentation Theory (DAT) suggests that in particular, the scientists running any given experiment are unconsciously utilizing psi to arrange that experiment as they choose.  This does NOT suggest that the experimenter may be affecting the subjects or the experiment psychically like TK or RI.  Rather, it suggests that the experimenter subconsciously arranged for subjects, and for timing, and myriad other factors, that would end up with the results that they (on whatever level of sub/consciousness) desired or believed in.  It also suggests that the "accuracy" of the psychic, rather than being increased in reality by some 'effect' (e.g., ViewerX did better on paper), is instead, by using subjective judging, being increased by the judge themselves (e.g., ViewerX didn't do any better, but JudgeZ 'matched' their sessions to the appropriate targets better, or worse, depending on their own issues--not consciously).

So the first sort of suggests that experimenters are in the midst of a trial and they affect the trial.  The second sort of suggests that experimenters arrange the trial itself and every detail down to publishing at a subconscious level.  The second, to me, actually requires a lot more 'psychic interconnection' between humans -- but I suspect this is actually the case.

In ADDITION to the DAT issues, EE may play its own role, such as how positive belief on the part of a leader or researcher may increase literal performance of subjects tested.  So they can simultaneously both exist. They are obviously similar; but they are not the same.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around May 1, 2004

Last night (Friday) I went to the weekly presentation at the Rhine Research Center (RRC) to listen to Dale E. Graff speak.  He was a great speaker, and though I have not read any of his books, I hear they are very well written and informative.  

I am posting about this in this thread cuz most of his discourse was on how we recieve PSI info in dreams, and it all really reflected (no pun intended) Warcolliers findings.  

He is doing RV through his dreams, and that was the actual subject of his presenation.  Like I said, it was darn fascinating and I think I am gonna give it a try.  The process, as I understood it, is simple.  You get your form, and like CRV, you plop down the date, time, location, and task id number.  Then you do a bit of focusing your intentions, then you go to sleep.  He stated that the most PSI productive times are right before wake-up, so I am gonna set my alarm for about 3 since I get up at 4:30, then have it go off again in about 30 minutes, then record my dreams.  

Of course he talked about a lot more than what I am here, but he was very fascinated with how we get visual info, and was very big on drawing what he gets, but not necessarily describing it.

Other neato things he said included his belief that we will figure out the mechanics of PSI, which I agree with.  He also said he thinks PSI is related to the force of gravity, and has a lot of interest in string theory.  He does not belong to the Morehouse or Dames fan club, btw.  He said a lot more which I am too tired to write about.... if you get a chance to hear him talk, please do, you will enjoy it.  

end of messages

[END Topic 217] Warcollier & how we draw TKR Remote Viewing Forum December 2003