Viewer Email Group
This is an archive file of the public Viewer [VWR] email list. This list is sponsored by the private Viewer Forum, hosted by Paradigm Systems and Design, and owned and operated by PJ Gaenir. It is dedicated to discussion of the practical aspects, theories and experience of formal psychic methodologies such as Controlled Remote Viewing, and independent efforts by the public interested in working under the formal RV protocol (the set of rules which define "remote viewing" as the term was coined in a science lab). You can find details, rules, and a form for joining the email group here. The list is moderated during operation and archiving. I remove last names and detail locations of contributors (within the archives) for privacy, and signatures for space conservation. I have added notes marking the posts from former U.S. intelligence remote viewers. Archiving of posts is done manually and may not include all posts.
This is the third archive.
APRIL 01 1997 TO APRIL
BEGIN ARCHIVE 3
<<I am also very interested in Remote Viewing for archaeological viewing to get a clearer picture of the ways things really where, or are, depending on the quantum view I suppose. What do you think about past viewing as a tool for the present?
I think it's a great idea. However, bear in mind that RV isn't technically RV unless you've got factual feedback. So, for instance, you could verify that the pyramids were built, but probably not how or when (that's still somewhat debated).
You also run into the problem that if you're going to consider 'probabilities,' then there are past probabilities as well as future. I'd say much of the 'anomalous' evidence there is in the world indicates that there are some overlapping of alternative realities, but that's just my personal opinion.
There's also the issue of revisionism. History is written by the victors, as they say, those who lived to write the books, and those who often had an agenda for doing so. What is often considered factual today may in fact be dramatically different from the way things actually were. This is present in every facet of history, and while it's probably strongest in areas bordering on religion, even archeology for instance is affected by anything from paradigms to outright scientism.
I know people who do a lot of "past" work with their methodologies. Their comments are usually that the past is a lot different than the present often makes it out to be.
I am personally very interested in languages, ancient civilizations, anomalous science, etc., so these sorts of things are really fascinating to me. For the most part, due to the lack of feedback (or questionably accurate feedback), you probably couldn't "call" this RV, but you could certainly use the same methodologies for the experience. I think it would be great.
In reading through posts for archiving, I realized that I've never really responded very well to your introductory post, and I had wanted to.
With your background, and your stated goals etc., I think if your interest in CRV continues and you get working knowledge of it you could be very effective in helping organize the field. You don't technically even have to be doing it to do that -- there are many "analyst" types who are not Viewers, and project managers, etc. -- the field could use more motivated and organized people! It is currently a few scattered people with different ideas and goals and training and belief systems.
You said: <<What have I to contribute?: 4. Profound emphasis upon right vs wrong
In what way does this relate to your perception of CRV?
You said: << 2. Total No. (to date) in this forum (whether 'subscribers' or not)?
And I said something like, sorry, all info is confidential.
Oh, brother. Was I uptight that day or WHAT? Sorry Bob. ;-) I don't know, I'd have to go count them from the list. I think there's about 120 people right now, however, there is usually a pretty small percentage of any email group that actually participates in writing.
You said, << 7. Given the numbers and communications media ...<snip>... from which filtered data could be forwarded) does anyone who's been at this for awhile believe that the percentage of "hits" can be brought to 'near perfect'?
Not certain what you mean, but as far as using the traditional (applications) form of accuracy determination, 100% of session data correct is highly unlikely. However, if you mean can you increase the number of sessions in which a Viewer appears to be correctly on target -- well, that's pretty much always, at least I'd say from my own practice. The problems with erroneous data seldom come from getting the wrong target altogether, rather, it comes from simply screwing up the data at the right target.
I think that's part of why most of CRV is about how not to screw up the data at the right target. :-) There seems to be some assumption that you're going to get the target right, or if there's not, I misunderstood that, I just haven't really experienced getting the target wrong, except one time which due to circumstance makes me say I wasn't anywhere near CRV (and wasn't even using the structure) anyway.
Sorry I was so abrupt in my first post to you. I've been busier than I've ever been in my life, working at home now instead of a business, and I've got an eight month old baby to boot, and it's made me a little bit rushed. Didn't mean to be a monster. :-) I hope this list provides you some of the information and correspondence you're looking for.
Btw: skepticism is GOOD.
Hiya Mark. Did anybody ever answer this?...
<<...I basically don't know where to begin. ... I started with a piece of blank paper and just basically wrote down any impression I got, trying to remember to describe and not identify (whew, I see why a monitor is preferable) and then jotted some sketches down.
That's as good a place as any to begin. Short of dragging you into CRV training I don't really know what else I could tell you.
Other than my training with Lyn, I have never worked with a monitor, so I don't know if I prefer it or not. I think I'd prefer it if HE was the monitor, but probably not anybody else... I think I'd rather do things alone. However, it is "easier" for me with a monitor, I think because there's a sense of relaxing and letting him direct me, rather than having to keep a part of my mind considering the data, redirecting me to certain areas, refocusing on certain data, etc. But I'm hypersensitive to influence, and I'm highly suggestible as a hypnotic subject, so I think I'd have a real problem with any monitor who was not extremely well trained.
<<I tried one of the targets ... on two separate days and each day I got two different sets of information.
LOL! So? Did you look at it to see what you got that was correct?
<<I also started to use a pendulum method I had read about but when I asked if it would be okay the pendulum went in a positive swing, when I asked if my name was Mark, it said no, needless to say I didn't attempt the pendulum. I seem to do better with just letting the process begin...maybe I am fighting it too much. Help!
I once asked runes if it was okay if I used them. I got a very definitive answer no. That was that. They've sat in my closet for three years. I figure, if you're not willing to take no for answer, no point in asking. As for who your subconscious thinks you are, that's a whole 'nuther animal. ;-)
Now, pendulum work is an ideomotor response; your subconscious affects the muscles in your hand which is what causes the pendulum to move. Technically, pendulum is just a manual form of biofeedback. You could buy something at radio shack and use the same concepts for working, except if you buy the kind that only makes noise, the tone will drive you crazy, be warned. This is a good foundation to rest on, because CRV also works very much with 'letting the subconscious tell you' what the information is. CRV is very much about getting the answer from your insides, instead of 'going outside to find it,' which many forms of psi methodologies utilize.
I feel there is also a so-far unrealized correlation between CRV and a couple of other things... but so far, not enough people even know CRV well, let alone has there been much of a chance for cross-field studies.
I used to do a great deal of biofeedback and hypnotic work and study, and one of the things that really fascinated me was how we could experiment, say, have 6 people sit in a room together, wire one up (basic trimodal) and ask him/her questions about the other people's houses, lives, or something she wouldn't know. And the readings would give us the answer. This is one of the key things that changed me from being a cynic into being a lot more open minded about 'parapsychology.' And this of course is the reason CRV works.
CRV is basically one method for teaching your subconscious to talk to you in the way you want, and teaching yourself to understand what it says. In biofeedback you can say, "Body, IF xyz is the answer, please make the reading go higher when I reach that point." And if it is, it does. (see footnotes) CRV is another way of saying, "Body, tell me how you would show me XYZ. OK, now how about ABC." And so forth. And with enough practice, you can tell the difference right off on many things. For instance, you might sit down with a target, and within a minute or two of beginning with nothing but a number, you'd already know that it's a manmade structure of natural materials, or that there are multiple growing things, or that there are people, or whatever. Of course, this is just a "gestalt;" the rest of the session is about the details. But the bottom line of making contact with yourself, and therefore the information, in CRV is letting your subconscious tell you, and it does so through your body. Once you have made that contact, then you get in closer contact with it through each phase.
I wanted to point out that in a way, it's a good sign that you got two different sets of data. Most people, frontloaded with knowing they just did this target and got XYZ, would find it almost impossible to get any OTHER data that contradicted that. It's a monster STRAY CAT waiting to happen. Yet you did, which indicates you were able to put aside prior findings and be objective. Whether you were right or wrong either time is almost beside the point: structure-wise, which is the whole root of doing well at CRV, you did really great with that. Not many people would.
The main advice I can give you is, open to all sensories. Not just to sight, but sound, smell, taste, and how it feels like if your fingers were touching it. And to ambience, and non-obvious sensories, does it feel indoors or outdoors? Spacious or crowded, large or small? What kind of impact does it make on you in other ways? Cities often feel "empty / grimy / hectic" to me in RV. I once RV'd a church and wrote down impressions such as "strength. peace. serenity." You get the idea. Don't let the "Viewing" part of the title fool you -- it includes everything you can perceive. If you have any difficulty with visuals, or if it is difficult for you to keep analysis out of your visuals, then switch to some other forms of perception.
Hope this helps at least a little. Let me know how you do!
I notice you said you did various forms of subtle hands-on healing. Have you ever worked with your own subconscious imagery to affect and/or heal a person while doing this? Because it occurs to me that this is one area where a modified (unstructured, uncontrolled) form of RV would be very effective.
I used to study with a woman who did hands-on healing (literally in her case, though often subtly as well), and much of our work both mental and physical was about registering, through our own body and subconscious (imagery) what was going on inside the person (either etherically, emotionally, psychologically, or physically), and then working to alter that (with their permission) to something balanced. It sort of requires 'becoming one with' the person (you take on much of them, a sort of merge) while in the process, and then fixing yourself and helping them duplicate that internal process for themselves.
In any case, like I said, this wouldn't be CRV. But the abilities utilized _during_ CRV, such as the ability to perceive (in any combination of sensories or concepts) something, could be very useful in healing work of any kind. It's a sort of combination of RV-related psi and modified ARV (associative). Could be very interesting for someone in your line of work.
You said to someone whose post I didn't see:
<<You brought forth the truth that any religious/spiritual presence is potentially disruptive to this important forum. I am truely sorry if I offended anybody. RoseLotus is simply my own private manifestation of the Perennial Philosophy. I personally respect and honor all paths to the Divine. But since this type of "noise" is potentially disruptive to the goals of this group I have eliminated my signature block from this forum.>>
The email group -- in fact, all things sponsored by me -- do specifically avoid organized religion and/or the imposition of religious paradigms over psi/CRV (because psi has enough of its erroneous paradigms already!).
However, everybody has their own take on things. If you understand your personal abilities in a framework related to spirituality of any given slant, that's no more my business (to judge or edit) than Alan and his "gold zone" (btw Alan, I used to tell people in high school about the "everything in slow motion," and nobody knew what I was talking about. Once mentioned it to a boss years later, he said that used to happen to him in football but he'd never told anybody.) or "spiritual hologram" or, frankly, anybody and their own version of things.
There are many people who have an extremely spiritual take on CRV, or who used modified (and usually uncontrolled) methodologies which began with Swann to pursue spiritual or psychological exploration or healing. CRV itself is merely a structure; what people put into it is their own. If person A thinks they can do this because God gave them this gift, or because they were an Egyptian priestess in their last life, or because they are really an alien -- hey, who am I to argue? I don't know everything. Whatever works for you is fine with me.
I have nothing against people being spiritual, and to suggest you edit your signature because it's spiritual would be as illogical as asking someone else to edit theirs because I don't like their quoted philosopher or something -- it's not my business. If you want your signature to read whatever makes you happy and you feel represents you, then by all means, go for it.
It's a small thing. I make a point to mention it here because I want my own feelings on this subject to be clear. As far as I'm concerned, if you can fit Jesus and Buddha into something that talks directly about CRV, more power to you. Others might change those terms when responding, but as long as it's CRV we're all talking about, that's fine with me.
I'm responding to PJ's posting about spirituality.
Ah, yes, the spirituality question.
I spent years getting out of my head. Er, that didn't come out exactly as I planned it. It's been my observation so far that many CRV'ers I know are mostly in their head, doing the intellectual thing. You have to, to learn the method! (There are a few exceptions who seem to live primarily in their heart, one of them being David Morehouse.)
However, the actual practice for me comes out of my compassion for the earth and mankind (and otherkind), my dedication to my spiritual walk, and my ethical commitment. Does that seem wishy washy to some of you? I assure you it is a hard position to hold, since the world wants me to deny that I feel. In fact, in my studies of the nervous system and its relation to our work (OUR WORK, folks), I observe that a fully functioning nervous system is important as it is what is supporting the perception, even though the perception is mental (maybe). Example: If I don't get enough sleep, the demarcation between the "two" realities becomes fuzzy and I lose track of important info in BOTH.
I think we all share these deeper spiritual feelings, but some deny them because they are not fashionable. To be moved to tears by the galloping of the cosmos doesn't fit well with the image that many persons would like to project. For CRV specifically, just because it is so powerful, and makes obsolete the concept of "secret", it seems important to me that the viewer have a strong ethical core, and "heart" (called spirituality by some).
It cuts two ways. With a tender heart, one then needs a cool-down that will shield one in cases where the target may be found dead, in pieces, or worse. It's my personal opinion that one reason some of the Army viewers had their reality so blasted, other than the misuse of them as a resource, was because this aspect was ignored in their training, and their tender heart was not protected or ready for some of the necessarily dreadful lookings, no matter how tough their exterior and training or strong their intellect. Remote Viewing impacts all aspects of a person, even if one is denying the existence of some of them.
I'm so glad to be part of this forum that feels like it has the potential to move the technology and practice of CRV light years forward, to the benefit of all of us.
I have a question regarding description vs. analysis. Here's the situation: I frontloaded one of the targets at the firedocs site, and then I sat with a sketching block and a pencil, and I started sketching shapes. Before I went to get the feedback, I discussed what I'd sensed with my son. But everything I said to him, he insisted I was analysing rather than describing. And I can't really figure out how to go about 'describing' something without using some sort of 'point of reference.' AND, I found myself concentrating on NOT using 'point of reference' terms instead of being able to 'let go' and 'let things flow.'
Here's what I mean. I sketched a tall, spire-shaped object sitting next to a boxy, squarish object, and when my son asked me about it I said something to the effect that what I was feeling was a silo-shaped or missile-shaped or spire-shaped object, or something like that. He said that I was 'analysing' and not describing. How would I 'describe' something like that? About the only thing I could come up with (after really thinking about NOT using actual objects for descriptive purposes) is, 'well, it's longer than it is wide,' or 'it's tall and skinny.' But, I really had to deliberately concentrate on staying away from using objects as analogies to describe what I was sensing.
Does one have to _school_ oneself to scale down definitions or descriptions to extremely basic vocabulary to do this correctly? I tried to explain to my son that I wasn't saying that the object WAS a missile or a silo or a spire, but that's the SHAPE of what I was sensing, but he was adamant about my being too analytical and not descriptive enough. Is he correct? Is this something that I need to work on? Is there a certain vocabulary mindset one must work to achieve?
The next time I tried a target, I found myself concentrating on how I phrased my feelings instead of letting the words flow. I had no trouble with the sketching, but I lost 'contact' (I don't know how else to put it) when I tried to verbally describe the input I was getting from the target because I was trying NOT to use words that were names of objects. It was like the connexion was broken, as if my mind were distracted from the objective of the exercise, worrying about being PC <g>, if you get the analogy here.
Any and all help, commentary, etc. would be VERY much appreciated. As I said in my introductory post, I'm a total tyro to CRV, and I want to learn to do this right. If I need to throw on the anchors and just practice describing things in certain terms before I try another target, then that's what I'll do.
<<I spent years getting out of my head. Er, that didn't come out exactly as I planned it. It's been my observation so far that many CRV'ers I know are mostly in their head, doing the intellectual thing. You have to, to learn the method!
Different work requires different approaches. I suppose everybody has their own perception of CRV and its place with them. For me, I don't really see it as either a "loving" thing or a "thinking" thing. I see "intuition" (accessing subconscious information, from wherever it may originate) as a sort of middle ground -- "non-partisan" or "non-sectarian," if you will. It is all things and no things... it is what you make it. It is in my opinion a biologically-inherent (not to say limited to that, but probably related to it) and normal aspect of life. As such, I assign no more to the psi process itself than I do walking. What road I choose to walk down, and whether I take out anybody on the way, is another story.
The structure itself and perhaps the lower phases are probably seen as intellectual -- but remember, we're talking about it, so we're intellectualizing it. If we were talking about love, we'd be intellectualizing that, too. The higher phases of CRV are by their nature different, and involve a great deal more of the "heart centered" stuff as you mention; I don't think it's possible to get in close contact with a target and not be somewhat merged with it, and therefore affected by it. Training is learning to deal with that, recognize that, and get rid of it when it's over.
<<I think we all share these deeper spiritual feelings, but some deny them because they are not fashionable. To be moved to tears by the galloping of the cosmos doesn't fit well with the image that many persons would like to project. For CRV specifically, just because it is so powerful, and makes obsolete the concept of "secret", it seems important to me that the viewer have a strong ethical core, and "heart" (called spirituality by some).
I think this is true.
On the other hand, I guess the problem is seldom a simple concept of spirituality, which doesn't offend most people interested in these subjects; rather, it is the assigning of that spirituality certain personal paradigms which many want to inflict on others, e.g., "This is a gift from Zeuss and you have to use it his way."
The other thing is what is considered unethical. For instance, our culture has an astonishing amount of money=sin paradigms for a semi-capitalist society. In my worldview, money isn't bad. Greed, I don't mean the kind that hurts people, but the kind that says, "More! More! <drooling> I want more!" -- I see that as good, in fact, I see greed as one of the motivating forces that has accomplished more in our society than any other force (not that it's all good, but it still accomplishes a great deal when used as impetus). Personally, I think if somebody wants to learn CRV for no other reason than so they can perhaps come into lots of money and surround themselves with naked women feeding them grapes by a roman pool -- great! More power to 'em. If that's the motivation for them, I say go for it.
Thing is, psi abilities have been advertised as either good or bad, altruism or power, for eternity. And they got nowhere except in little cults. I loved CRV right off because it's the first time somebody took a psi ability and instead of trying to save your soul (or buy it), instead of relegating it into little niches with all those paradigms, they said, "Here's a good tool. Could use this in police departments, and business." No good or bad assigned -- just an ability. What people do with it is, of course, up to them. To me, I am thrilled somebody finally dragged what I consider a practical ability out of the mystical muck and tried to do something useful with it.
<<With a tender heart, one then needs a cool-down that will shield one in cases where the target may be found dead, in pieces, or worse.
Anybody in high-phase contact with a target is going to be affected by the fact that a target is ... not in good shape. I don't think it has anything to do with whether or not they are spiritual vs. military (as if those aren't compatible?). You can't touch these things at that level and not have them touch you back.
It has been my experience that shielding is as much a paradigm as any other. But if that works for you and prevents you from emotional damage based on what you view, great. Everybody has their own way of dealing with these sorts of things.
<<It's my personal opinion that one reason some of the Army viewers had their reality so blasted, other than the misuse of them as a resource, ...
I don't really feel they were misused as a resource, although there's surely plenty of things that "if they had known then what they know now" they'd have gone about differently. I think RV as military intelligence is a brilliant idea, and as a patriot I'm truly disgusted that the program was mishandled and finally closed. I feel those opposing it allowed their own personal problems to become, quite literally, a threat to national security when they prohibited us from having a resource that could be critical when used properly, and that our enemies have and utilize against us.
I suspect anybody who becomes good at CRV has their reality blasted. It doesn't matter if they're locating warheads or stray kittens. It doesn't matter if they were in the Army then or if they're a CRV student now. When you open to perceptions you have never had, it is going to alter things for you, there's just no getting around that.
The idea that the military Viewers were clueless and unspiritual has been promoted in the past by a few people. I have only encountered five people from that program, personally. The four I know well enough to say, are all HIGHLY spiritual. So I think the idea that they were like, some kind of soulless-psychic-soldier is erroneous. Most of them -- in fact, all of them I know -- had pronounced spiritual beliefs and practices prior to arriving in the unit. But there is no amount of spiritual beliefs and practice that are going to prepare you for drastically revising how you perceive reality.
Keep in mind, too, that your main exposure to the military side of this has been through David Morehouse. I like Dave, but his perception of the program and his experience there is apparently quite different than that of many others who were there. I'm not saying anybody's right or wrong -- just that everybody has their own take on it, and there are other points of view.
I think a lot of people appreciate your questions, so thanks for being a brave one!
<<I sketched a tall, spire-shaped object sitting next to a boxy, squarish object, and when my son asked me about it I said something to the effect that what I was feeling was a silo-shaped or missile-shaped or spire-shaped object, or something like that. He said that I was 'analysing' and not describing. How would I 'describe' something like that? About the only thing I could come up with (after really thinking about NOT using actual objects for descriptive purposes) is, 'well, it's longer than it is wide,' or 'it's tall and skinny.' But, I really had to deliberately concentrate on staying away from using objects as analogies to describe what I was sensing.
One of my first conclusions in CRV was, "English sucks." Not only does it not begin to have enough words, but a surprising number of things have NO words for them _except_ something which names a specific thing which has that shape. You would think, given that shapes surround us, that we could come up with some words for them, wouldn't you.
Technically, when you say "like this" you are analyzing, and you record it as such. But I think there's something I left out when we discussed this earlier, and I'm sorry, because I see now this is where you're running into confusion.
1. When something comes to you that is analysis, go ahead and write it down. I mean literally, spell it out. Chances are if you don't, you are going to hold onto it and it will pollute your data from that point on. Just recognize that it is analysis.
2. It's true that you do not _want_ to analyze, you want to describe. However, I don't want you to assign something "BAD" to analysis. It is not good or bad. It just is. It is not desireable, particularly in early stages. But if you think it's so bad that you're literally afraid of it, yes, it's going to pull you out of target contact. Your mind is going to do some degree of analysis no matter what you do, especially when you're beginning. Rather than suppress it, EXPRESS it, write it down, with the recognition that it's analysis, and then let it go. Don't be mad at yourself for analyzing. Your mind is very good at that, and it's a talent, it just isn't the best means of doing what you want at that time is all. It's no big deal.
3. There are going to be plenty of times when NOTHING will describe, in words, what you are getting except -- you guessed it -- some form of analysis. You are going to have to say "missile shaped" if you think it's missile shaped and you have no other means of describing it. Your drawings are the best demonstration of shape, and that's why when you hit the CRV stage that first focuses on shapes you begin drawing. An analyst would disregard your 'analysis' terms and only take the other data. However, if there was any confusion or lack of clarity, your 'allegory analysis' would make things clearer, so it does have a use.
CRV methodology, as we've said, is a structure, right? It is simply "a way of doing something." However, when it comes to your perceptions, the rule is NOT to deny or ignore perceptions which do not fit into the most-desired mold. The structure is about expressing your perceptions, whatever they may be: the CRV structure makes you recognize and categorize them in a certain way, depending on what you're trying to do, where you are in the session, what you did before that, etc. But "pretending" you didn't get a certain type of data (e.g. analysis) because you know your goal is descriptives is more harm than help. YES, go for descriptives. But if you get other stuff, no matter what, write it down and forget about it and go on.
<<Does one have to _school_ oneself to scale down definitions or descriptions to extremely basic vocabulary to do this correctly?
There is some degree of training to describe, not identify or 'allegorize,' yes. But as I mentioned above, many times you are going to run into something that you just can't describe without saying "like... this." For instance, say there is a sinuous, thin and long strand wrapping upward around a vertical column. In session, many viewers might say, "like ivy," or "like a ribbon," or "like rope" or something like that. Technically those are analysis. They are recognized as such. They may end up being helpful anyway. You just have to realize that they are analysis, that it might be something totally unlike what you think it's "like," and not let it affect your session data.
That's the critical point where most sessions are 'make or break' time. The moment you think it is "like" something, if you can't let go of that totally, your conscious mind, trying desperately to fit a pattern to all things, will try to make your data into that thing.
<<I tried to explain to my son that I wasn't saying that the object WAS a missile or a silo or a spire, but that's the SHAPE of what I was sensing, but he was adamant about my being too analytical and not descriptive enough. Is he correct?
Well, tell him that _positive_ encouragement is a good thing in learning anything, especially CRV. ;-)
However, off the top of my head, I'd say that there's a middle ground.
(a) You are going to analyze, period, so get used to it, get used to recognizing it, recording it and letting it go, and get used to aiming for descriptives instead, and over time you'll find that you improve, you'll start getting more descriptive.
(b) Lyn Buchanan has an excellent exercise that he has shared with the public that aids in this. It's not CRV, but after doing it you'll see why it's so helpful. Even totally outside "impressions" in psi work, most people can't describe things very well. Take a look at the target you finished, and without getting into minute details, just describe it. While looking at it. You may find that it's not as easy as you think -- and that's when it's right in front of you! Describe it into a tape recorder and see if somebody not exposed to the photo will have any clue what you're describing. Then you'll see how hard it is... let alone when your perceptions are not nearly as clear as when it's right in front of you. I have Buchanan's exercise somewhere, I'm going to post it on my site, I think that's okay with him, and I'll put the URL here so you guys can go look at it. It's very, very useful.
<<The next time I tried a target, I found myself concentrating on how I phrased my feelings instead of letting the words flow.
The best training for doing it right is just doing it. When you have something that you feel is analysis, just write it down anyway; if you want, mark it analysis so you remember when the session is over, and go on. Your mind will learn just by the practice of recognizing it when it happens and knowing that isn't your goal. If you try to suppress it, or alter it consciously prior to expressing it, you are in fact doing the very thing you do NOT want to do: you are affecting data. How right or wrong your data is, is beside the point: you're not allowed to consciously make that decision and then manipulate it, the whole goal of CRV is to learn to NOT to manipulate it, to get it as clear from the source to the paper as possible.
<<I had no trouble with the sketching, but I lost 'contact' (I don't know how else to put it) when I tried to verbally describe the input I was getting from the target because I was trying NOT to use words that were names of objects. It was like the connexion was broken, as if my mind were distracted from the objective of the exercise, worrying about being PC <g>, if you get the analogy here.
Absolutely. Also, you know, when you're doing this, unless you're working in a trained structure, do what feels natural. If you're doing really well drawing it, and if trying to verball write/describe it seems to be pulling you out of contact, then stop describing it already, and just draw more! When you've gotten what you think "feels right" for your first sketch, tell yourself to change perspectives or relationship to the target, like look from above, or farther away, or the other side; or tell yourself to focus in on a certain part of it; in other words, if drawing is really working for you, then do what you can to continue drawing and collect as much data from that approach as possible.
Don't give up! You're doing well! These are the questions EVERYBODY has when they begin this firmly intending to follow instructions. This only indicates that you're taking the instructions to "describe - don't identify" seriously, and that's great. Just remember that you're learning, and let yourself relax about it. Tell your son to be a little more gentle or you're going to RV his love life. That oughtta cool him off. Ha!
Lastly, keep in mind that there are more descriptives and senses than VISUAL available here and a goal is to use them all. "OK, so you don't have words for something, and you sketched it out, and you want better target contact but what next?"
How does it feel to your fingers? What is the surface like? Hard? Soft? Smooth? Rough? Textured? Cold? Warm? What does it taste like? If you knocked on it with your knuckles, what kind of sound does it make? If you scratched it with your fingernails? Do you get a color(s), or pattern(s)? What do you smell?
And then, back to perspective shifts: if you stand right next to it, with your feet almost touching the bottom of it next to you, how tall is it? A few inches? Feet? Miles? If you hovered above it and looked around, would you be a few inches or feet taller, or looking over an entire city, or getting a glimpse of a planet?
Mind you, do NOT give yourself "options" when you're doing this, like either/or, that's a huge no-no. I'm just trying to give you examples. A monitor would never say, "is it big like a house or small like a mouse?" They would say, "What size is it?" No leading.
I find that I often "feel things with my fingers", pick up sounds, and concepts, as well as I do anything else, even right out the door of beginning a session. Use what you get. If you want, make a list of the different types of sensories, and as you're sitting there doing your session, you can glance at them to remind yourself of what you should be open to.
END ARCHIVE 03
APRIL 01 1997 TO APRIL 10 1997
A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.
Top of Page