REMOTE VIEWING

PJ's Personal Archives

www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/pjarchives/



Journal Excerpt [geometric conceptual linguistics]

{February, 1994}

One morning recently, while half-awake, I found myself doing something interesting. I've been through this before, but hadn't remembered. This is difficult to explain.

There are these shapes, like geometric shapes, some complex, some simple. They're in three dimensions plus a conceptual sort of dimension. These shapes are... best way to say it is, they're a language.

They're "conceptual." As if the distance of each part of the shape (the 1 or plus or mass-part that makes up the defined part of the shape), and the space between them (the 0 or minus or space-part that defines the shape by defining the not of it), and their relationship to each other -- every possible aspect of a geometric form that could be written into a geometry equation -- like every single aspect meant something, and the combination meant something that combined those meanings and yet is somehow more, too.

The shapes are absolutely literal and exact. There is a very strong sense that these shapes make up the whole universe, as if all things are composed, actually, of geometries.

It has an almost physical component, it's as if one feels the shape inside them somehow, and it perfectly communicates something. Language as I know it is a created thing which describes one's perception of things; this is different, as if the geometry is somehow equal to the "inherent absolute ISness" of the thing being described; in other words, it's not merely a language, but somehow "is" the thing being communicated itself, and one understands it not because one has learned to translate the shape into a concept which they relate to, but rather as if one simply IS all things being communicated (even external things are felt inside oneself).

There is a definite boundary to each shape and meaning. It's difficult to put all this in words, but it's not less tangible or less definite than words, but infinitely more so. The meaning is never inexact. It's not approximate; it is quite defined, all the way through. But it is so different from English -- so much more literal -- that it's just as impossible to translate as the "abstracts."

The ability to communicate so "fully" is so much vaster than anything I know that on finishing, I'm quiet and sad for the loss of ability. I nicknamed it Geometric Conceptual Linguistics for lack of a better term. It feels on some level as if all things in existence, even objects, are composed of ideas, like ideas are physical, and all ideas -- all concepts -- are "shapes" in some deeper, truer perception.

o0o

{Letter re: April, 1994}

I remember one unique thing from earlier this year. I don't remember how I "got there," but I pretty much was "knocked unconscious," nightly, regularly, so I assume this wasn't any different.

I'm shown something that seems like a book. Then I realize it's not a book but is actually part of a screen, like a computer screen, I just had the mental "impression" of book, as if someone were communicating that to me. I looked at the surface, which was some medium-dark color, and there were these rows of vertical long ovals... hard to describe... they each seemed about the size and width of my little finger. The ovals themselves are dark, like black, and they're filled with all these little white dots.

Well I'm looking at these things and I have no clue what they are. Then I realize, Oh, it's like a language or something! I could tell I was supposed to "read" it, that was why I had the book concept. I studied them closely and went in various directions of looking at them, but frankly, all the ovals looked the same to me, just a bunch of white dots. I tried to count the dots, but there were too many, too small, too indefinite. I tried reading each one, like to see if there was some pattern from the top of the oval to the bottom or whatever, some slight difference in shape between them. Nothing. Then I looked real closely at them, and suddenly fell inward -- and I was inside one of them -- I was rushing toward the "center of everything" -- then I "was" at the center of everything -- and I realized that all those white dots, now surrounding me and part of me, were stars!

I just "existed" there, and realized that it told a story: the relationship between the stars, between the space, between everything; everything was a geometry; the geometry was a language. And I thought to myself, Whoa... this must be what astrology is supposed to explain. Then I realized that it told more than just a "story" or explanation. It was an entire conceptual universe. It was as if I knew all about everything, the concepts behind every creature, planet, everything, based on the relationship of the stars and space to each other. I don't mean I knew the life story of every entity; just that I understood the "structure" of that universe. Every universe, I realized, was literally an idea incarnate.

The geometry was just like the language someone had been teaching me. I realized that I had a "grokking" of it, so to speak; I could find my way around the universe I'd been shown with my eyes closed. I "knew" internally where everything was, the stars, the space, even the things that technically should have been "behind" me and out of my view, I could "feel" them like I was all of the geometry of the relationship between us, like the entire geometric form of all of it was inside me physically.

OK, so it doesn't pay my rent. It's not good for not much of anything. I don't know that it's fascinating to anybody but me. It certainly doesn't qualify as "useful" in any occupation I know of. It was interesting, though.

[end]

You can send email to PJ Gaenir about this account.

PJ's Personal Archives Menu Page



The Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection is now a static archive (Feb 2008). Click here to see what's still online for reference.

All contents on this website are Copyright © 1995 to present by Palyne 'PJ' Gaenir. All rights reserved.
Permission is given to reproduce anything in small quantity, but online only, and please mention/link source.