Topic [189] Sessions and Personality TKR Remote Viewing Forum October 2003

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

wizopeva, somewhere around October 8, 2003

It's often said that different viewers are good at different types of things in a session.   For instance, some are better are viewing people or places or drawing maps or understanding processes.  I wonder how much of that difference is related to the personality of the viewer.  For instance, if you are a conceptual thinker in daily life, will you be more likely to be a conceptual viewer?  If you are strongly visual, will you be a strong visual viewer?  For myself, I have noticed that in a session, I am often interested in the relationships between things, and that is also an aspect of my waking personality.  I wonder how much can be said about a person's personality by looking at their sessions.
-E

EricT, somewhere around October 8, 2003

Hey Eva!

Hmm, interesting concept.  I find I view "better" things I can relate too, although I am not sure I would peg that as personality.  When the sub feeds a person up bits a pieces of info, maybe the stuff that is more known to the viewer is easier to piece together.

I am a technical guy by nature, and technical targets seem to be easier for me than say, stuff I dont relate to.  For instance, strictly human targets involved in cultural activites I am not familiar with seem harder.  But I am too new at this to draw any conclusions as seeing more long term trands is required.  (I dont count sessions, but if I did, I know at this point its still in the upper 2 digit numbers)

Also- if you firmly believe you view one thing better than another, you will.  At least, IMHO.  Viewer psychology can be very limiting that way.  Maybe better phrased, if you believe you aren't good at viewing a particular set of circurmstances, than you wont be.  

I bet those limitations are quite viewable in a persons sessions, and hence translate to personality interpretations well.

Could be that the subconcious is a bit better aquainted with the concious on activites familiar to the concious.  Such is my speculation.

Eric

admin, somewhere around October 8, 2003

Hi Eva,

Hmmnn. This is a topic I've thought about a lot.  I doubt there's any one answer, but I bet everybody has their own (growing) experience with it, even in non-RV forms of psi or intuition or healing etc.

Just recently, my viewing has started changing, now that I'm finally doing it mostly daily.  

I'm getting a lot more visuals.  A lot more symbolic visuals as well (and glory hallelujah, most of the time I know they are symbolic and not literal. Not always).  -)oing far more prelim sketching than I ever did before, I used to do like... none, all written.

It seems to me that to varying degrees, maybe we get what we ask for or expect, at least sometimes.

As I continue to feel out what I call 'Aspect RV', I am starting to really see some difference in this area.  For example, when I ask me-as-"Songwriter" for info, it is usually 'reflective' in nature and comes in words.  Yet, when I ask another aspect, it is more prone to have visuals and/or to have a sense of shape.  When I ask me-as-"CEO" or "Architect", it is as if, the information has to be taken "in context of" the "Aspect" it is coming through--they will report almost like an elemental, very specific to that one focus and way-of-thinking.  

I'm also finding that some are consistently accurate or not, and some are accurate but only for certain target types.  This will take some years to figure out I imagine, but I'm having a good time with it.  It feels like having a crush on myself inside, it's actually delightful to feel like I'm getting to know parts of myself I never met before.

On occasion I think to ask a specific question and I get a specific answer.  I mean like, "What is the most important/relevant thing about this target?" and getting an answer.  Now whether I can come up with a context for the target by session end is unknown--and unlikely given all my sessions are brief exercises, due to my schedule.  But I am sometimes impressed at feedback at how specific the answer was.

And sometimes I have no answer.  I think this relates to what is said about a good blind monitor, in a flexi format of course, that they are being psychic too, and they often ask a specific question in just the way that bam, there the information is for the viewer, specific and exactly what was needed.  It's 'chance' that it happens; but of course, psi is all about stacking chance on our side, right.  ;-)

I asked Joe once if the data I got on something would have been different if I had done the session later in the day, the next week, or a variety of other options for changed circumstance.  He said yeah.  That got me thinking about how "who we are at the moment" we do a session affects our data.  

And then back to Aspect RV and about how maybe we can be proactive about "who we are" in a session, rather than accepting the default identity we live our mundane lives with as our psychic inquirer, searching out parts of ourselves that might be more 'attuned' to certain facets of a target (or all of psi).  The Aspect of me more attuned to structural detail (the Architect) might be better at that kind of info.  Some Aspects might be better at psi across the board.  

The variable part of me I kid myself is a static "me" is apparently what I need in order to get the kid to school and be a soccor mom and do my work and so forth.  That doesn't mean that particular 'me' is the best of all my potential for being psychic.

As time goes on, I ask inside myself if there are 'any volunteers' for info on the target.  If I feel a sense of like, hands waving, I call on them one by one, number them A1, A2, A3, etc., and write down the impressions I get when I focus on that aspect.  After the session, if they seemed accurate, I'll ask each to give me some unique term to refer to them by, like a name, so I can call them into future sessions.  Often it's something my conscious mind finds really stupid--I'm not about to repeat them here and make every viewer in the vicinity retch about my new Agerbil tendencies lol--but so far that approach seems to be working.

The data always varies.  I'm still new to finally having time even for regular exercise, so I haven't enough bulk behind me to have any real answers (though any answers, I suspect, would only apply to me).  But it does seem to me, in my experience, that data in a session varies not only depending on our general personality, talents/skills, life experience, but also by our mood and health and other factors, and then yet further by 'how' we focus ourselves.

Which is cool in a way because it sort of leaves the topic wide-open for exploration by everybody.  It seems to be a highly personal thing, as unique as every mind is unique--a path of intrigue for every individual.

PJ

Gene_Smith, somewhere around October 9, 2003

Hi Eva and everyone else too!!

This is a really deep subject when you get into it, just touching on a couple of the areas, let me toss in a few thoughts.  I have had some experience in working in a team type effort on targets and there seemed to be both a division of data that was gotten tempered with each individual getting data in their own manner.

With the division of data it was like with large complicated targets or subjects each individual would be "given" a piece of it, which when examined as a whole showed a mosiac of the overall target.  Now the "given" part could be a subject all in itself.  Like is it us, the viewers, that decide what we are given or is the the place, thing, matrix, or whatever that decides what to give us.  I mean could this thing (the matrix for lack of a better word) be sentient.  And if so what is the mechanism behind it.  The mind of God, a collective actively thinking conciousness, etc.  But I digress, so back to the subject at hand.

Asside from the division of data "given" each person's strength in viewing seemed to come into play also.  I have no solid evidence for what is taking place here.  But just thinking off the top of my head I think that the patterns of concious thought are the biggest controlling factor here.  What I mean is that it seems that my subconcious mind has an almost limitless creativity and interest.  But in communicating that info to my concious mind it (my subconcious) has to use some well worn path or memory that it can trigger to signal to me some kind of data.  Ingo spoke of this in one of his more recent writtings I believe where one of the lady viewers got a tea kettle on a tripod over a flame (an approximate description by me) for what turned out the be a nuclear reactor.  Ingo proffered that the tea pot was the closest thing in her concious memory bank to a nuclear reactor, hence the image.  So using this theory it would be my thought that my concious mind is more of the limiting factor than is my subconcious or right brain in delivering up data.  Hence men, as a general rule probably are better at some kinds of data than women and visa versa.

Which brings me to something you (Eva) mention at the end of your post about if info about a person's psychology could be gathered from sessions.   You know I have never thought of this before, but I would bet that a trained psycholigist who knew something about the process of RV could get a whole lot and I mean a WHOLE LOT of perhaps personal data on how a person thinks etc by looking over a body of their session work.  Perhaps just one more thing to be paranoid about... hehe

Best regards all,
Gene Smith

EricT, somewhere around October 9, 2003

Something I just remembered-

My trainer Jim mentioned one time that he thought it would be cool to see some form of analysis where an experienced viewers data in an area they excelled at was weighted a bit heavier in whatever sorting matrix was used.  So, if a viewer was really good with describing technically complex objects, and he finds something at target that fits that category and few other viewers do, it might still get through the hoop, as the lingo goes.  I am paraphrasing, Jim jump in and correct me as need be.

Corroboration is important, but utilizing known strengths which derive from personality traits, seems to be a good idea.  IMHO.  :)

Eric

admin, somewhere around October 9, 2003

Somewhere--I am not sure if this is in public stuff or pem stuff--Joe was saying that he thinks (I am paraphrasing, I don't speak for him :-)) something like, when we get data, it's that our minds are basically taking an impression/energy/info/whatever, and sifting through our experience to 'find the match'.  

Whatever the detail of his comment was, my inference from it was that people who had a greater span of personal experience might do better at RV; and that people who had a lot of personal experience in a specific area, might do better at RV when the target was in that area.  So, someone expert at ships might do better on anything nautical; someone expert at human psychology might do better at profiling; he didn't say this, this was my inference from whatever he did say.

I suppose the way for a person to discover whether their viewing correlates to their personal experience and expertise, is a whole lot of viewing, which will eventually, if the targets are really varied, start to show something observable along those lines.

Per Gene's comments, I notice my own personality traits show up in sessions.  For example I often entirely miss the 'emotion' in a target that surely has a lot of it, but will pick up the issue it's based around (such as mass death) with grim, blackly-morbid-humor quips I can tell represent death in a given form.  

I think this is part of my own psychology, I tend to cry over stupid commercials but have twisted humor about really major things; my own psychological defense I am sure.... I am more calm and fast-thinking under threat, as that's my childhood environ, and tend to take out issues like grief in 'safe' ways.  "76 Trombones led the big parade!" and they magically have band uniforms and I'm bawling my head off about how beautiful it is in this totally stupid movie and my friends or my kid now are laughing their heads off.  Even in school I was like that--cool and black about the worst stuff, but a totally sappy fountain about the stupidest things.

I'm expecting that with time I will work past this, because I want to be able to pick up more emotion from people in the focus of targets.  I generally can get some of it--like exhaustion, boredom, urgency, concern or excitment--but not horror-fear-grief.  Those, I tend to skip the emotion and get different data from the target instead.  I trust that time and more human events targets will work me through that.  

But I am sure it would be clear to an analyst, something about a viewer's psychology, from seeing what someone does or doesn't get in a session--and how.

On a related note, since I do a different kind of RV method I've been developing myself, and since I write a lot of personal notes, thoughts, correlations etc. into many of my sessions, I have often considered that it is really nobody else's business what my raw session sheets look like.  

I consider this both intimate to me personally, and something of intellectual property professionally (I am not doing RV professionally, but I think you get what I mean).  

I am happy to transcribe all the data--and replicate all sketch pieces--into a 'session presentation'.  But the raw data, I don't consider that anybody's business but mine.

It shouldn't be a matter of proving anything, since one still has to provide information prior to feedback to call something RV, and that is being done either way.  

And it's not much different than some viewers I know who are capable of holding a heck of a lot of stuff in their head because in their view it is
(a) nobody's business, this data point or degree;
(b) is not appropriate for the medium they are working in at that moment;
(c) would freak out the scientists who really aren't ready for anything beyond the-facts-ma'am,
etc.  

Obviously if one is working with an analyst familiar with them, the raw stuff needs to go to them.  But that's a private situation in most cases anyway.

I like to think of RV work as a magical process, of my lab book as a magical diary I also write thoughts and rants and prayers and dreams in, and the overall process itself as being private.  A 'session presentation' is all I'd be willing to open for public consumption.  (Coming soon to a theatre near you. lol.)  

PJ

wizopeva, somewhere around October 9, 2003

I think we discussed a bit of this in the 9 to 1 thread.  Lyn uses a system of analyzing track records of viewers and weighing the data accordingly.  For instance, if a viewer has a strong track record in one area, then in that area, the viewer's impressions are given a lot of weight.   Now I don't know if the weighting itself is computerized, but the track record scores are.  So in essence, he uses the results themselves and bypasses the issue of personality that may or may not be generating the track record propensities themselves.  

That strategy made me wonder if a good plan might be to use a track record weighting system COMBINED with looking for congruence amongst only those viewers who have very similar strengths and propensities.  
-E


[quote]Something I just remembered-



Corroboration is important, but utilizing known strengths which derive from personality traits, seems to be a good idea.  IMHO.  :)

Eric[/quote]

wizopeva, somewhere around October 9, 2003

I remember first hearing that actually from the TV psychic John Edwards.  He called it something along the lines of the file drawer effect in which the some total of his personal history and memory constituted the 'files' that are used by the spirits of others when attempting to communicate with him.  At the time, I remember thinking how similar his description seemed to my experiences in rv.
-E



[quote]Somewhere--I am not sure if this is in public stuff or pem stuff--Joe was saying that he thinks (I am paraphrasing, I don't speak for him :-)) something like, when we get data, it's that our minds are basically taking an impression/energy/info/whatever, and sifting through our experience to 'find the match'.  

PJ[/quote]

admin, somewhere around October 10, 2003

I think that's probably the case.  I'm pretty sure this is in Joe's book MIND TREK ('93) as well, I was just looking through that again the other day, but I'd imagine that psychics' awareness of this dynamic has been known for a zillion years.

Re: databasing, I am ambivalent about that.  There are problems I've seen with using it in the typical viewer development experience most people have.  Like:

(1) the accuracy% of any session is useless as info and even misleading. I've had plenty of sessions 97-100% in this measure that were useless sessions, and plenty of sessions with a much lower score that rocked on specifics or context.  The bottom line is this method of measure "weights" all data points equally.  

Additionally, it cannot well separate out the many aspects of a complex or higher-level statement and sketches, and those are two of the most useful kinds of data in a session--generally moreso than disconnected descriptives.

(2) more and more over time, I am just coming to be totally against the "literal and counted" approach to RV sessions.  I've been so for years, but lately it's really increasing.  Everything valuable I have learned about RV has *not* come through that doorway, and if anything, runs contrary to that state of mind.

Maybe once a viewer is working professionally, and once another person is being paid to tabulate viewer sessions, this process is useful.  But for developing viewers, it seems to provide numbers that not only aren't relevant to their process, but focus them on a really literal pass/fail wrong/right interpretation of the process as well.  

Instead of thoughtfully reviewing their session and why they got certain data and how their mind works, I've seen far too many viewers just spend all this time after a session counting and doing math.  This is trashing the best period of time for real review, and math is just NOT what learning about self in the RV context is about.

It's "busy work".  It keeps people busy and would justify funding and be an aid to science and make great looking graphs for bureacrats, but....!

(3) most viewers have a helluva hard time finding 20++ minutes a night to do a session.  Adding this kind of bureacratic bean-counting "administration" to the process, where you can do 15 minutes of session and an hour of paperwork after, I have seen this be a huge factor in causing anything from viewer burnout to just viewers not doing RV because they don't have time.

Viewers have historically not done this kind of stuff for themselves--the government paid a bean counter to do it for them.  

So, I think some of the session point-by-point databasing process is counterproductive when done by viewers themselves.  If someone else wants to spend their time poring over my sessions fine, but I'm certainly not going to--been there, done that, and I don't recall it ever teaching me anything about RV except that it is a lot easier to do simple math than RV, which ends the process with someone feeling like they know what they're doing, LOL.

For someone using it to figure out who to assign taskings to, I can see its value.  It would, at least, make more clear viewers who seemed to aquire certain types of data accurately more often than others.

Still, even on that count I have quibbles (I know, bitch bitch bitch! lol!).

First and most obviously, that genuinely good viewers are rare enough that it shouldn't require database tabulations to know who is a good viewer.

Second, that I see from my own work that it is not easy to find a specific correlation in type of data that is accurate, and if it can only be found in a large sampling statistically, then that effect is just not strong enough per-session to affect per-session expectations.

Third, this means of measure offers number 'rewards' for people who can generate the most low-level and often useless (comparatively) data.  For example, someone can generate 10 pages of disconnected descriptives, which will quite nicely describe 80% of all targets in the known universe including that one, and boy it really looks like they "put out".  

I've done consideration of sessions from a range of people and data like "flat, bright, slanted, glinting..." -- unless these are *major focus aspects* of the target, this kind of data is just not worth focusing on, it's not useful at the end--and as a process for viewers, seems to bury them in an endless "shopping basket" collection mentality, of one of everything on the shelves of the target, instead of what is RELEVENT to the target.

Back in '96 I think it was, McMoneagle once described how the viewer is always focusing on what is 'most important or relevent' about that target/tasking.  A viewer can spend 20 pages going on about stuff that is totally accurate, 2 pages of which described every possible descriptive of the zippered leather jacket of a person in the target for example, and say nothing. But a viewer worth having is the one who learns to focus in and say, "Um... there is a guy with a gun in his hand."

The fact that 9,000 other descriptives were 'accurate' is beside the point, unless the tasking was specific to gathering that info.  (Even then, the endless-S2 approach is IMO a diversion of viewing focus.)  

Looking at a database, the first viewer is wonderfully prolific, and has a good "measurable" accuracy% for every imaginable database category, whereas the second one gets hardly any data at all, and statistically is far more likely to have a lower % because the main of data they provide is not fleshing out every imaginable S2 descriptive but being more specific on higher-level data.  Still, give me the second viewer any day!

I find that databasing my sessions, like any other process in RV, had psychological and session effects on me.  For example, if I credit myself for 142 disconnected descriptives that happen to match the environ of a target--some really beautifully--then I am more likely to get a ton of descriptives in my sessions.  If I acknowledge these but really only pay attention to the data I got that is more to the point of the 'focus' of the target and what is 'most important or relevant' about the target, then I start getting more data along those lines.  RV is all about 'intent', and getting what you ask for and focus on and expect--and demand of yourself.  I think the process of dbasing should be done by a separate individual, because when done by the viewer, it focuses them more on quantity and numbers instead of on quality and context, and what they learn to focus on and validate, especially right after a session, is what seems to affect their viewing most.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around October 10, 2003

As for the databasing issue, I haven't thought much about it since I don't do a lot of work matching RV material with the target.  My post-session stuff is usually trying to get a better grip on what successful reception feels like so I can go there again.  

But back to the issue of Personality and RV success.... if personality is such an important factor....[color=Blue]HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN I HAVE ANY SUCCESS AT ALL?!![/color]

...okay, enough silliness.  I am still working from that [color=LimeGreen]Indra's Web[/color] metaphor, cuz it works for me.  I think personality decides which knots on the jeweled net we work with.   So depending on your present personality state, or aspect, you are grabbing hold of those aspects of the tasked event that reflect in those jewels on the web.

[size=1]Disclaimer:  I usually cringe when someone uses terms like "Matrix" and "virtual quantum consciousness" but here I am running wild with this old Hindu methaphor.... sorry for my hypocracy.[/size]

So the success getting different types or "facets" of info if you change your perspective via using different "aspects" seems perfectly logical.  

But there is more... and here is the wacky part... I think that different "people" are just different clusters of jewels on Indra's web... and if you let go of your perch where you are now... and drop down somewhere else on the web... you are somewhere/somewhen else!  

So what if I did my RV session from the aspect of ANOTHER PERSON!, say, some other, more successful viewer?  

I mean, if our personality/belief system is what is holding us back... what if we took on the aspect of someone who isn't held back?

Or is this a very silly notion?

admin, somewhere around October 10, 2003

Not silly at all, that's actually a part of the Aspect RV idea (I don't play that up much as too many already think it's some weird kind of channeling lol).  

You could call on the viewer you will be in five years.  Or, Pat Price.  Or, the most talented viewer in 2008.  You could also call on personalities.  For example if you had a strong sense you were with a civil war target and wanted to get as much detail as possible, calling on someone you know of who lived during that period, that Aspect might better recognize the context and detail of things.

Now metaphysically, there is no telling whether we are getting an aspect of us that best reflects what we subconsciously expect of that identity, or if we are psychically 'matching the energetic pattern of that thoughtform-identity', or what the case may be.  Who knows -- that particular question is really an answer for philosophers with plenty of armchair time LOL.

But from the hands-on perspective, nothing is impossible.  It's just a matter of how much courage people have for exploring the infinite nature of Self.  A lot of people have a real hard time with anything that threatens the "safe, static nature of identity," and that's understandable.  A lot of people can do RV in a given method and be horrified at the kind of things I think are the coolest parts of developing-self in RV, and that's okay.  One neat thing about this field is that RV is a protocol, not a process; you can attach any approach to psi you want to it.

Have you ever seen stuff on "artificial reincarnation"?  This is where people who are hypnotized to believe they are someone else can promptly do amazing things that that person could do (although even a stage show can show you some of that).  Another guy who is sure he is channeling the greats can paint flawlessly in the techniques of all the great masters.  

All of this stuff is possible and I believe it is because we are all part of the one, so to speak, and that identity itself is merely an 'information pattern' and that there are no limits to what we can explore, except our imagination to think to explore it--and our fear to think to hold back.

Another issue I won't get into now is that in a lot of structured RV methods there is a strong emphasis on staying OUT of the target, one is in contact with it but 'not too close' -- being separate from it, not personalizing it.  I'm 100% opposite of this idea, I want to explore BEing the universe.  So, to each their own I guess!  ;-)

PJ

jimk, somewhere around October 10, 2003

This may be a bit off-topic for this thread, or maybe it isn't.

I would like to throw out a question, just to see what you guys think.

A few years ago I read a study that basically said that people usually don't think they are the same person as they were say 5 or 10 years ago, in essence, they perceive themselves as a completely different person every 10 years or so.

I am not quite sure if I think of myself that way, but I can say one thing for sure, since I started remote viewing and meditating more, I have much more of a feeling of observing myself, my thought processes and emotions from a sort of strange 3rd person perspective.  It is as if I am able to distinguish between the real me, which I call my 'self', vs. the biological entity driven by physiological and psychological mechanisms which is called 'Jim'.

What I don't know is if this new perspective of myself is born out of my experiences, or if it is conditioning through literature and reasoning.

What's your take on this, how do you perceive yourselves, what do you perceive as the 'real' you, and is there some part of you that you know is constant throughout this experience called Life?

Jim K.

EricT, somewhere around October 10, 2003

Jim, I think you should ask Karl that question, since he just went to timeline at TMI, heh.


On that note- I always start my sessions thinking, in the future, I am damn good at this... and time doesnt matter so...  my silly affirmation.  I like it.  :)

E

wizopeva, somewhere around October 10, 2003

Actually, I didn't mean to imply that personality holds you back, although I dod suspect that certain negative thought processes within many people probably do hold them back.  But I am not sure if I would so far as to say that constitutes the personality itself.  Actually, what I meant by personality aspects is that perhaps personality has a strong determination on how the viewer approaches the target and also possibly the areas of strength and weakness.  It may have a lot to do with general interest factor within the personality.  
-E



[quote]
I mean, if our personality/belief system is what is holding us back... what if we took on the aspect of someone who isn't held back?

Or is this a very silly notion?[/quote]

admin, somewhere around October 10, 2003

Sigh. General interest factor -- yeah.  I have more than once had an Aspect just come out and tell me that there was info but I just wasn't interested enough to drag it out. And I realized they were right.

There is a certain 'emotional impetus' required and I think some times of day, or too much sleepiness, maybe even nutritional issues who knows, can affect me.

Sometimes when I've gotten frustrated and really had it out in a session, wanting to FEEL, give it to me damn it lol, and after a short time of a feeling an "unbelievable degree of boredom" suddenly there it is.  (In fact when I feel a sense of 'so profoundly bored I cannot BEAR to continue the session', it is a good clue that if I can just keep my butt in session for another 5 minutes I'm set.)

Sometimes I just can't sum it up, though.  The emotion that powers intent.

You know I wish I could find my little notebook around here.  One time I had this realization about ... emotional stages and I realized that instead of just mental cooldown I should be doing a sort of emotional process that relates to intent, and I ended up doing 'intuitive writing', closest to channeled I'd done in many eons, so I think I was in the zone and it'd be worth rereading.

Unfortunately I have so little time for RV that daily sessions are tough, brief, and often it takes 3 attempts for a session because I snore through the first two!

PJ

admin, somewhere around October 10, 2003

Sorry Jim didn't mean to skip your question.  Just had a guilt attack (haven't done my session today) when reading Eva's, LOL.

Well, first I think I have to address the mundane physical aspect of things.

I have come to loosely hold the belief--and all my beliefs are subject to quick change by the way--that we are a conglomerate of energy.  And that every atom of our bodies is part of that.  We are more than our bodies of course (the body's the red band in the rainbow of soul, as I said in Bewilderness), but we also very much ARE our bodies--that is a legitimate part of the energy conglomerate we staple the nametag "I" to.  

Well, my stomach lining is new every 7 days, and so forth, you know how the body is always replacing itself.  And physicists say that we actually 'trade atoms' with the chair we sit on and the people we interact with and the car we drive and everything else we come into contact with.  That chair is actually "a part of me."  Some of me goes with it and some of it goes with me.  

I think this is part of what's behind the yogis talking about having to recognize and love everything you surround yourself with, because you're sharing your most intimate self with it--literally trading tiny parts of yourself with it.  (Sounds like a good case for taking that 'birds of a feather' thing seriously LOL.)

Anyway, so even from a physical perspective and what we already know about science, if the conglomerate energy of our bodies IS legitimately a big part of our identity, then surely our identity is in constant flux.  It's our "sense of identity" that is steady--not 'us' itself.  Part of "we" are peeling off with our stomach lining cells every seven days and so forth!  

On a more psychological or esoteric note, I think I have a tendency to 'change' more than most people I have known in my life.  I tend to extremes as well, alas.  I don't feel like the person I was a year ago, let alone 5 or 10 years ago.  Sure I have plenty of the same energies, and I have "taken the history" of the body I inhabit, so it all feels like me.  But I think I change a lot, and I am always amazed at people who don't seem to. Or perhaps it's not that they change less, but rather, that they have a great "strength of linear identification with their sense of identity" than I do.

PJ

jimk, somewhere around October 10, 2003

"strength of linear identification with their sense of identity"

Hehe, this is the most eloquent way I've ever seen anyone refer to the EGO.  :-)

Jim K.

jimk, somewhere around October 11, 2003

"It's our "sense of identity" that is steady--not 'us' itself.  Part of "we" are peeling off with our stomach lining cells every seven days and so forth!"

What holds this "sense of identity" together?  Is it really a valid question to ask who is doing the perceiving of our own reality?  Many philosophical/religious traditions differ on the validity of this question.  I'd say it is a 50-50 split between Judaeo-Christian/Islamic vs. East/South Asian traditions.

Can we remote viewers find the answer to this without being tainted by our social context?

Speaking of that, have people tried to remote view their 'true' identity or self, that which is supposed to be realized through meditation, rapture, etc?  I wonder if the intent to subconsciously find it would lead to some sort of hastened spiritual awakening?

Many questions, so few answers.

Jim K.

EricT, somewhere around October 11, 2003

RV yourself?  Heh, talk about frontloading...  ;)

E

admin, somewhere around October 11, 2003

Hi Jim,

The "me" I truly am vs. the "me" I think is me on a daily basis (clearly, we need some new words here. :-)

When I am NOT centered, my emotions and personality traits feel inseparable from "me".  e.g., amoeba-like "stimulus-response."  The emotions like annoyance or anger or happiness or whatever are one with me.

When I am more centered, they are not.  I feel them, sure; but it is like, I am aware of them, and if I care to, I can "let them pass through me".  I am aware of the fact that the emotion is not "me", the emotion is simply being "experienced by me", which are two different things.  It allows me to be more observant of my own responses to things.  

Basically this is the root of so-called "Self-Awareness," I think.

There are some interesting things I would like to learn and could target but I am not sure I would know how to interpret them, or how to ... "assimilate" them if I did.

I was once targeted with myself and my motivations for something.  It was a pretty hilarious result.  Apparently I think a lot of myself, LOL.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around October 12, 2003

In many religions the notion of a person being made up of multiple "selves" is common.  I guess the monotheistic Middle Easter religions do see us a created as one thing (so as to be easier to judge us), but many others do not.  I have gotten to where I see each of us as made up of many "selves" and our sense of ego just picks out the clumps of traits it feels best with and says "This is who I am".

Where did I read some research on a group of channelers who just made up a channeled person who started being channeled and fit the description that they made up?  What does that tell us about how "personality" works?

admin, somewhere around October 14, 2003

I think I remember that!, but I think they were spiritualists (seances).

Maybe that is evidence for 'thought forms'.  It certainly is clear that thoughts and creations can be targeted.

It occurrs to me that perhaps a manmade building is really not entirely different than a manmade story, at an energetic level.  Granted the building comes in -- er, building shape, and the story comes in book shape (but maybe the words are story-shaped...).

One thing I find interesting in sessions is how different aspects of me (as I'm doing Aspect RV) find different parts of the target interesting.  Like in one session, one Aspect tells me she finds the 'poles' interesting. And she describes them.  And I'm thinking, what the bleep do poles have to do with this target?  But who would know, she likes it, so I write it down.

So on feedback I see that in the FB, which is like a town square/street, funeral thing from late 1800's, there are all these poles, just as she described them, I assume these were telegraph poles or something.  Of course, this was not relevant to the focus of the target, so it was not the kind of data I was real happy about, regardless of it technically being in FB and accurate.  But she'd said something like, "That's what *I* find interesting."

It kind of trips me out how different parts of me find different parts of a target interesting.  So for example say one does a target and they totally doorknob or or whatever your terminology of choice: they pick some small, potentially inconsequential thing in the target and, in utter fascination, just rant ON about this thing through most of the session.

Well on feedback, the standard RV wisdom would say that you got 'distracted', basically.

Well, maybe that's really oversimplifying.  If it's true that we are many 'Aspects', then it is just that you allowed an aspect of you who is well given to such detail and fascination and a love of that sort of thing to dominate the session.  So closing down that Aspect's contribution to sessions ("don't let myself get carried away") is not desired. But knowing when to call it up on purpose, and when to allow some different Aspect of self to lead, that seems useful.

I haven't yet had a target while using Aspect RV that was a story or painting or document so I'm not sure what the result is going to be.  But it seems like there'd be Aspects that would sort of specialize in thoughtform type information.  It's just finding them. :-)  

Sometimes, which Aspects one chooses to call on is itself info about the target.  The other day out of the blue I wrote down, "Nurse>" and thought, now that is weird, I have never thought of that aspect before, is that relevent?  And nurse says, "Yeah, I think there is some need for me related to this target."  The target: A russian battle tank. heh heh. That isn't data specific to focus but is humorous nonetheless.  

(Reminds me of a target of a mountain goat wandering in rural Scotland.  The 'Rock Star' Aspect, called on to say something about the target, literally gripes, "What a boring fucking place!  Let's leave."  LOL!)

PJ

waterway, somewhere around October 14, 2003

Hey!  This aspect RV thing is pretty smart.  Another plus is that by dropping our "normal" personality, we also drop all the AOL and Ego controlled filters that obscure tasked data.

The aspect we use may have its own biases, but certainly doesn't have our personality's baggage of thought habits and "mental reflexes"

Pretty spiffy stuff.  

admin, somewhere around October 14, 2003

Well I dunno, maybe. I think anything coming through us does have most our 'stuff' alas. But I do find that by focusing on different Aspects I often get the kind of data that is unlikely for me outside that approach.

In reality, the Aspect approach is a major 'filter'--a deliberate one though, as sometimes red is much more clearly seen without blue, for example. So, one aspect may really suck at any target that isn't a human situation, but really rock at those which are.  In a perfect world my viewing would get to where I 'automatically' chose the aspect that was either best for everything, or that managed the process of all those who were needed.  Right now it's all experimental, so I don't really know anything, and every session tends to bring some new experience or idea.

One thing I should mention though, I don't start out in the Aspect model.  I start out in a very generic model.  Just wide open 'describe the target' refocusing for 5-10 minutes, whatever impressions I get for descriptives and sketching, and then I arbitrarily work through some aspects just to see what happens.  Sometimes I'll ask one for info and for 10 seconds seem to get nothing and then have the urge to sketch a shape--the info doesn't always come in the form of words, it's just the easiest to relate when talking about things.

I seldom have time to do extended sessions, so that facet of experience in this model I've little insight into yet.  Thus far it is just an experimental model I've been using for my RV exercises.  

Heh. Calling RV exercise is one sure way to make most people avoid it. ;-)

PJ

waterway, somewhere around October 17, 2003

PJ noted:

[color=Orange][size=1]Heh. Calling RV exercise is one sure way to make most people avoid it. [/size][/color]

Sure.  But calling it "RV naked beer party" sounds kinda unprofessional.  I bet the annual conference attendence would pick up though!  Just a thought. ::)

admin, somewhere around October 17, 2003

LOL!  One of my favorite people online years ago dubbed himself "King, Home-Brewed Remote Viewing."

Naked beer party--that's a methods alternative to the meditation massage party right?   ;-)  Hmmn, maybe those kinds of 'altered states' aren't as interchangeable as some people think though.  ;)  As we've learned recently here, the primary value of drinking parties is inspiring your neighbors to have lucid dreams and out of body experiences.  ;-)

PJ

Benton, somewhere around December 8, 2004

I am gonna kinda hijack this thread.... or steer it slightly, to allow some of the viewers to discuss their techniques, process and mindset..... their personal way of RVing and working a session.  I just wanted to bump it back up to the top to make it easier to find.  I will ask folks in the feedback to their sessions, to come here and talk about their work.

So, I am bumping and hijacking this thread for 2 reasons.
1. To let us all see how they do it.
2. To open up communication and sharing BETWEEN us here .

EricT, somewhere around December 8, 2004

Hey Benton-

I have been bouncing between using  similar model to PJs "aspect RV" and just doing it really fast, trying to outpace AOLs.  

From what I have seen, when I am on with the AsRV (new acronym kids, write that down) I seem to get more and better data, and the process is more enjoyable.

I made the following analogy in an email recently, I feel the urge to share it here.  Bear with me for a moment.

Turning the mindset to "exercise" yet again, take personal training at the gym- there seems to be 2 main methods.  The first being "ignore the pain", which is go somewhere else mentally, remove as much focus as possible from the task, IE people reading magazines on the treadmill, or doing something really difficult yet try to be detached.  Alot of trainers will go this route.

The other method is more of a controlled focus- pay attention to your body, where is it hurting, why, pay attention to form... not so many trainers go this route.  More martial ats trainers seem to go for the latter here.  Being "mindful" vs "mindless" I suppose... Sound biased, do I?!  Haha.

This seems to be the same way with methods- alot of the methods are just "work as fast as possible, dont think, just run run run..."  Whereas some of the more freehand/meditative models are abobut a controlled focus.  Some could argue that a good method is both, I am not trying to start that argument.   I am just making some sweeping generalizations, hehe.  

PJ just posted a quote from Joe's 3 part interview she did, and it really rang true for me- the quote about too many people going too fast and not paying enough attention.  I think the trick to getting really good... at anything, is the focus.  

Of course, getting a little more back on topic, this will depend on personality as well- those who respond best to the displaced focus and speed will succeed more at a controlled method than the freeform, I think.

I am trying to remember a buddhist tidbit I learned... had to do with dealing with pain.  Instead of trying to ignore it, the trick is to focus entirely on it for a period of time, and then just "let it go".

Of course, success at RV seems to be the best way to force personality change without a hope of ever going back.  Hopefully this is a good thing in your case, it isnt always in everyones... (giant meteor human race death predictions, ad nauseum)

Well thats enough goofiness from me on te topic.  No, probably not.  I just have found more success in all things meditation by intent directed focus, vs ignoring the pain.  

Eric

end of messages

[END Topic 189] Sessions and Personality TKR Remote Viewing Forum October 2003