firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 006
.


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 sixth archive.


APRIL 10 1997 TO APRIL 17 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 6

If I can just mark those 'analytical' impressions with an (A) next to them, and then go on, it'll surely make things a LOT easier. And much more free-flowing.

<<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.<<

I guess it's all coming down to semantics. In my mind (at least until I PRACTICE <g) it's easier (and, I understand, NOT desirable) to say 'missile shaped' than to write an entire paragraph giving dimensional descriptives like, 'I feel something tall, cylindrical, pointed on top, much taller than I am, skinny . . .' etc. But I can see where this IS the more desirable course. I guess, in a way, it's somewhat akin to how people have described certain UFOs as being 'cigar shaped' rather than saying that they're, 'cylindrical withrounded, blunted ends, yatta-yatta-yatta' or, the way people will say 'Scotch tape,' when what they mean is 'cellophane tape,' and not necessarily one particular brand or another. This is going to take some thought, but this particular aspect is intriguing, in a semantic sort of way. <g Actually, I think it's going to be fun just PRACTICING being descriptive rather than analytical! <g

<<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.<<

Ah, THIS, above all else that's been said on the matter, points up WHY descriptives are much better, in the long run, than analysis. THANK YOU!

Okay, another question on semantics: If I said I 'touched' the target (or a part of it) and then tapped it with my fingernail, would it be too analytical to say that the object had a 'metallic' feel to it, or the sound it made gave a 'metallic' ring, or a 'bell-like tone?'

From what we've discussed thus far, I would think the answer would be 'yes' (too analytical) in the former case, and 'not too terribly bad' in the latter, because 'metallic' DOES imply that it might be made of metal, but a 'bell-like' tone could come from not only an actual bell, but a glass filled with liquid or an empty bucket or just about a bizillion other things.Or, as another example, if you say something is rose-coloured or olive-coloured, one doesn't necessarily mean that it _is_ or it's _from_ a rose or an olive -- that's just the most concise way of describing the colour (as opposed to saying, 'the colour is a mixture of red with approximately x% white and y% blue . . .').

One more thing: when describing sounds, how would one classify the barking of a dog? If, when 'listening' to a target I distinctively heard a dog barking -- or a symphony playing, or a telephone ringing, or a person's voice saying, 'Bloody codswallop!' for that matter -- when I wrote it down, how would that be classified? I just cannot, for the life of me, think of anything 'descriptive' to say about those things! <g

Although learning about RV in general, and CRV in particular, is a lot of work, I am thoroughly enjoying myself. Each little bit learned is a joy, and each new piece fitted into the puzzle is a source of pride for me. Thanks for all the help and encouragement.

Cheers, Laura


Hi Laura,

You're a joy -- thanks to you, a lot of people are learning a lot. ;-)

<<But I'm warning you, I'm likely to ask some questions that you more experienced folk might consider 'no-brainers.' <g

Personally I am not all that experienced -- Lyn and Paul are the experts here. But if we hadn't all wanted to help educate the public, we'd have stuck to a private group, so don't be shy.

<<I guess it's all coming down to semantics. In my mind (at least until I PRACTICE <g) it's easier (and, I understand, NOT desirable) to say 'missile shaped' than to write an entire paragraph giving dimensional descriptives like, 'I feel something tall, cylindrical, pointed on top, much taller than I am, skinny . . .' etc. But I can see where this IS the more desirable course.

Yup. Now, after the session, if a professional analyst takes your session data, he's going to go through it and he's going to cross out every single word that is an analytical overlay / assumption / allegory etc. And so forth, for a few different rules. And when he's done, the data that's left, THAT's what he is going to use as his 'hard data.' If you didn't bother describing that shape in detail because it was easier to say "like a missile," he is going to have almost NO data about that shape at all. And if that's the target, or important to it, well, that's a pretty big problem.

<<Okay, another question on semantics: If I said I 'touched' the target (or a part of it) and then tapped it with my fingernail, would it be too analytical to say that the object had a 'metallic' feel to it, or the sound it made gave a 'metallic' ring, or a 'bell-like tone?'

I don't think so. Understand that to some degree we could split hairs all day about it, and I'm not the world's expert (or ANY expert). But a "metallic ring" is a descriptive thing. It does not actually say it's metal, it INFERS it is metal, but that doesn't mean it is. Something can sound "tinny" without being made of tin, or feel "rubbery" without being made of rubber. My personal take on this would be that as long as you are using it in the _descriptive_ sense and not in the _identifying_ sense (and that includes "like .." allegories), you're fine.

<<One more thing: when describing sounds, how would one classify the barking of a dog? If, when 'listening' to a target I distinctively heard a dog barking -- or a symphony playing, or a telephone ringing, or a person's voice saying, 'Bloody codswallop!' for that matter -- when I wrote it down, how would that be classified?

If I heard a voice saying "bloody codswallop" in the middle of my session I would probably be laughing too hard to continue. ;-) That must be a british expression, it's certainly new to me. :-)

Geez, I've never really thought about it, but from my own work, I can say that when I'm hearing the sounds of traffic going past, I'm probably going to say I hear the sound of traffic. Technically, that's analytical, it might not be traffic. But again you get to the hairsplitting thing.

On one hand, you should ALSO describe what that traffic sounds like. "Whooshing, rythmic but not evenly spaced, a sort of 'zooming' sound now and then, a doppler effect of higher then lower pitch, louder then quieter, as it passes behind me and then into the distance to my right."

If your analyst knows that it could be something else, and might have an idea what, it could be very useful. Otherwise, "traffic" could just throw him off. If you're SURE it's traffic, you can write that down, but it's more a note for you than him.

On the other, I can tell you that in your session if you encounter a field, you're likely going to say "grassy field," and only recognizing that this is an identifier, and paying more attention to the details, will bring up, "the ground is outdoors, is large, spacious, flat into the distance, green, organic growth." Express what you receive as data. Just be sure that each thing receives as much descriptives from all sensories as you can sense.

You're bound to make mistakes, or leave out data you sensed but thought was imagination or had to be wrong, or label things without realizing it, or realize after the session that half the data you perceived about something didn't actually get written down. Practice, practice, practice!

And when you get your feedback, go through your session data and consider every piece of it compared to the feedback. Showing your mind what was correct vs. incorrect (in some cases it'll be unknown), in detail, is a big part of learning this.

PJ


<<Okay, another question on semantics: If I said I 'touched' the target (or a part of it) and then tapped it with my fingernail, would it be too analytical to say that the object had a 'metallic' feel to it, or the sound it made gave a 'metallic' ring, or a 'bell-like tone?'

A "metallic" feel is a definite descriptor, and there is nothing wrong with that. But "bell-like tone" is sort of bordering on analytic, because you are using a noun to describe something. The general rule in all this descriptive stuff is to not use nouns unless it is completely unavoidable. For example, instead of "bell-like sound", "ringing" might be better. But we have a problem with the language we all speak. Take shapes, for example. We have no problem with basic geometric shapes because we have words for them. Square, Round, Spherical, etc. But what happens when you perceive something which is donut-shaped? The word "toroidal" might not come readily to mind. What happens when we perceive something which is the shape of the top of a circus tent? The term "hyperbolic paraboloidal" might not fall tripplingly off the tongue. Beyond that, what happens when we perceive something "propeller-shaped" or "broom-shaped" or "windmill-shaped" or "tulip-shaped"? They are immediately recognizable and distinct shapes, but there just aren't any words in our language for them. You are forced to use nouns. It is very important to use pure descriptors as much as possible, without the use of nouns, but the more important thing is to perceive, report, and keep going. If the only way to do that is to use something like, "corkscrew-shaped", then just do it and keep viewing. There is a thing called the "cat chasing its tail" which is a condition where you get so wrapped up in the structure that you don't have time to do the viewing. That's a much worse thing than using a noun now and then.

<<From what we've discussed thus far, I would think the answer would be 'yes' (too analytical) in the former case, and 'not too terribly bad' in the latter, because 'metallic' DOES imply that it might be made of metal, but a 'bell-like' tone could come from not only an actual bell, but a glass filled with liquid or an empty bucket or just about a bizillion other things.

Actually, your logic here is just the opposite of what actually occurs. The word "metallic" does imply that it's made of metal, but it implies the composition or makeup of the target. The word "bell-like" implies that is it is a bell. If you then stop in your session to realize that it could be other things as well, you have entered into the "cat chasing its tail" situation, because you have stopped the session to analyze. If you keep going, you accept its implication that the target might be a bell, and the mind, seeking desparately to name the target, sees that you just implicitly approved (didn't disapprove) of its use of the noun, so it starts building belltowers and bellis ringing in the belltowers of churches and how the bells sound in the mornings - like in Paris, with birds flying up into the air, and the smell of bread baking, and ..... well, you get the idea. "Metallic" is OK. "Bell-like" is one to stay away from.

<<Or, as another example, if you say something is rose-coloured or olive-coloured, one doesn't necessarily mean that it _is_ or it's _from_ a rose or an olive -- that's just the most concise way of describing the colour (as opposed to saying,'the colour is a mixture of red with approximately x% white and y% blue . . .').

Exactly. The limits of our language. As PJ mentioned, there is an exercise called the "vocabulary exercise", which she will post. It is not like a standard vocabulary exercise, which teaches you a new word a day, etc. It is an exercise which is meant to take the words you already know, but have only in your "passive" vocabulary and move them to your "active" vocabulary, so they will be ready for use during session. Helps your everyday speech, as well.

<<One more thing: when describing sounds, how would one classify the barking of a dog? If, when 'listening' to a target I distinctively heard a dog barking -- or a symphony playing, or a telephone ringing, or a person's voice saying, 'Bloody codswallop!' for that matter -- when I wrote it down, how would that be classified? I just cannot, for the life of me, think of anything 'descriptive' to say about those things! <g

There are some perceptions which are so distinctive that you can only call them by their associated nouns. You have to be very careful. Remember, some fish can bark, as well as many lizards, etc. Not only symphony orchestras play symphonic music. Record players and radios do too. etc.etc.

A person's voice is one thing. A person's voice saying "Bloody codswallop!" is another. For that, where you hear the actual words, you move over to the side of the page and make a note to that effect, write down what you heard, then, like with the other things you have written there, you forget it and go on. That's hard to do, but believe me, it's best.

Although learning about RV in general, and CRV in particular, is a lot of work, I am thoroughly enjoying myself. Each little bit learned is a joy, and each new piece fitted into the puzzle is a source of pride for me. Thanks for all the help and encouragement. Cheers, Laura

Having fun at it is great incentive. Keep up the good work.

Lyn Buchanan

[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]


<<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.

When working missing children cases, etc., one of the first things you learn is that there are just going to be some target sites for which no amount of "cool-down" or shielding will be preparation enough. It comes with the job.

<<Remote Viewing impacts all aspects of a person, even if one is denying the existence of some of them.

Amen!!! There have been targets which have shaken me (us all, actually), to the core. There have been other targets which have been apparently nothing, but for some reason, they stay in the mind and nag and tug. Only weeks or months later do you realize the personal importance which lay hidden within the experience of having viewed 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.

Good to see you join. Welcome to the group.

Lyn Buchanan

[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]


<<Does one have to _school_ oneself to scale down definitions or descriptions to extremely basic vocabulary to do this correctly?

Laura,

We keep haranguing people to "describe, don't identify". It takes less than a second to teach that. It takes most people years to learn it. This is one of the reasons I am absolutely adamant about reqiring people who take my course to sign a waver stating that they will get at least 2 years experience after completing the advanced course before trying to train others. If they take the course and then go out and try to sell themselves as an expert and start charging others for their "expertise", it will not only cheat people, but also give a bad name to the whole field. The affidavit says that if they do that, every penny they make goes either me or to the charity of my choosing. I figure that if the money motive is removed, they won't be so quick to be "experts" and will spend more time becoming experts. The protocols are an "outward and visible sign of an inner and hidden meaning". Until you have __schooled__ yourself to this, you still have work to do.

In a previous msg, I answered that you can't spend all your time analyzing during a session, but that it is usually best to get the perception onto the paper and get on with viewing. That's still true. What I'm saying in this msg is that you shouldn't do your analyzing during the session, but don't forget to do it afterwards. Going back over old sessions can be a truely boring experience, but if you do, you begin to see the places where you could have been more accurate if you had simplified what you were writing - and if you had just reported in simpler terms what you were perceiving. It is in this going back over your session afterwards that the schooling of oneself takes place.

Fortunately, this schooling gives you a better understanding of your own thought processes, and the results show up in more than your CRV sessions. In learning to simplify things at the CRV level, you simplify at all levels. You find yourself getting more and more down to the basics of almost any and all situations. The bottom line becomes easier and easier to see.

I have heard it said that CRV is almost wasted, if all you use it for is parapsychology. I believe that to the max. If your thought processes get to the point where you simplify things down to the truth, false memories are suddenly seen for what they are, psychological problems are no longer taken as huge, unsurmountable problems, but as conglomerates of manageable simplicities, etc. Your subconscious mind says things very simply. Once you have schooled your conscious mind to listen simply, your subconscious doesn't have to give you the hives or a sick stomach in order to get its point across.

Lyn Buchanan

[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]


Laura, Palyne--

Palyne, you're always beating me to the answers! But that's okay, since you're doing such a great job answering them. Let me throw in my two cents worth on this, even though for the most part you've covered it.

:::Okay, another question on semantics: If I said I 'touched' the target (or a part of it) and then tapped it with my fingernail, would it be too analytical to say that the object had a 'metallic' feel to it, or the sound it made gave a 'metallic' ring, or a 'bell-like tone?'
<<I don't think so. Understand that to some degree we could split hairs all day about it, and I'm not the world's expert (or ANY expert). But a "metallic ring" is a descriptive thing. It does not actually say it's metal, it INFERS it is metal, but that doesn't mean it is. Something can sound "tinny" without being made of tin, or feel "rubbery" without being made of rubber. My personal take on this would be that as long as you are using it in the _descriptive_ sense and not in the _identifying_ sense (and that includes "like .." allegories), you're fine.

Usually, when one gets "metallic" it IS metallic--and it's a sensory input, rather than analysis. One can also get "burning rubber smells," "traffic sounds," "echoes," "salty taste," "barking sounds," "voices," "corduroy texture," etc. and be fairly safe. This type of input usually arises in what Lyn calls Phase 2, and I call Stage 2 (different names, same thing), in which very basic sensory details come through--"what my senses would experience were I physically present at the target," is how one migh express it. The theory is that because these impressions impact the viewer's system at a very primitive level in the brain, it is to some degree "pre-analysis," and erroneous analytic processing occurs only seldom at this point--it can happen, but is not as likely.

<<Geez, I've never really thought about it, but from my own work, I can say that when I'm hearing the sounds of traffic going past, I'm probably going to say I hear the sound of traffic. Technically, that's analytical, it might not be traffic. But again you get to the hairsplitting thing... On one hand, you should ALSO describe what that traffic sounds like. "Whooshing, rythmic but not evenly spaced, a sort of 'zooming' sound now and then, a doppler effect of higher then lower pitch, louder then quieter, as it passes behind me and then into the distance to my right."

This is a good point--often times even the terms I discussed above can be split into more basic components; but not always (you learn all about this in Phase/Stage 5), and you can derive useful info from it. But when data is coming fast and furious, there might not be time to bother; and it might not matter. In P/S 2, as they say, sometimes traffic sounds are just traffic sounds! The goal is to get so practiced at locking onto the "signal line," that you intuitively know the difference (at least most of the time).

Paul

[Archive Note: Paul H. Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]


...But, seriously, there have been several times when I was doing a session that I've heard the sound of voices, and on one or two occasions I've actually heard a recognisable word or two. In one instance I heard a man's voice say simply, 'Green,' and on another occasion I distinctly heard a woman's voice say, 'It's only water.' In the first instance, the word 'green' seemed to have nothing at all to do with the target (even after I looked at the feedback), and in the second instance (again, after looking at the feedback) there was a stream flowing through the target area. I wrote down what I'd heard, but I was afraid that the session might have been spoiled because I might have those words stuck in my head, and that they'd cause an AOL of sorts.

If you're SURE it's traffic, you can write that down, but it's more a note for you than him.

That's the sort of thing I've done in my last two sessions (after reading your initial response last night). The 'note to myself' that I permitted myself to jot down (with the annotation (A) that I spoke of in a prior post) was little more than a place under which I jotted down what I thought were the descriptives.

On the other, I can tell you that in your session if you encounter a field, you're likely going to say "grassy field," and only recognizing that this is an identifier, and paying more attention to the details, will bring up, "the ground is outdoors, is large, spacious, flat into the distance, green, organic growth." Express what you receive as data. Just be sure that each thing receives as much descriptives from all sensories as you can sense.<<

To take your hypothetical field target, I would have (hypothetically) been able to write down something like:

Field (A) Smooth, flowing vegetative growth Green, some brown Intermittant, small dots of colour Some movement in vegetative growth, wavy Smells clean, fresh, a little sweet Slightly breezy, cool Feels soft, cool and somewhat damp under my feet . . . . Would that have been allowable?

And when you get your feedback, go through your session data and consider every piece of it compared to the feedback. Showing your mind what was correct vs. incorrect (in some cases it'll be unknown), in detail, is a big part of learning this.<<

'Showing my mind' I think is the biggest hurdle of all. There's a part of me way in the back of my head that still balks at the idea that RV is even possible. When I see that I've actually made a goodly portion of correct 'hits' on a target, I feel as if it's a great accomplishment, yet there's this niggling little part of me that says, 'Coincidence! Nothing but coincidence!'

Having been 'conditioned' all my life that 'these things just do NOT occur' is going to be one huge chunk of baggage of which I must divest myself. I think I'm going to have a LOT of 'deprogramming' to do before I can fully accept that what I'm attempting to do is not only possible, but actually happening with me.

Cheers, Laura


Hello Mr Buchanan,

Thanks for answering my questions. I'm taking both of your posts and replying here in one, to save time/space. I hope you don't mind.

The general rule in all this descriptive stuff is to not use nouns unless it is completely unavoidable.<<

Ah, that helps a great deal. Thank you!

For example, instead of "bell-like sound", "ringing" might be better. <<

And, depending on the tonal quality, one might say, 'a deep, hollow ringing,' or 'a tinkling sort of ringing,' or 'a cacophanous jangling' -- is that correct?

There is a thing called the "cat chasing its tail" which is a condition where you get so wrapped up in the structure that you don't have time to do the viewing. That's a much worse thing than using a noun now and then.<<

I think that's what happened to me, at least in a sense. I became so afraid of making a verbal faux pas, that I lost contact with the target.

The protocols are an "outward and visible sign of an inner and hidden meaning". Until you have __schooled__ yourself to this, you still have work to do.<<

I like that. That's something I can keep going back to for encouragement.

Going back over old sessions can be a truely boring experience, but if you do, you begin to see the places where you could have been more accurate if you had simplified what you were writing - and if you had just reported in simpler terms what you were perceiving. It is in this going back over your session afterwards<<< that the schooling of oneself takes place.<<

Actually, going back over old sessions isn't boring -- at least to me. Each time I do I find something that I missed before, or something where I could've been more clear, or something that I NOW know threw me off. I find that extremely interesting -- and helpful. Especially since I'm so new at this.

Fortunately, this schooling gives you a better understanding of your own thought processes, and the results show up in more than your CRV sessions.<<

I haven't been at it anywhere NEAR long enough to be experiencing these 'long term' benefits, but I'm looking forward to just that.

...I realise that RV/CRV is a LOT of work. My point is that if a person can enjoy their work, no matter what it is, I believe that a person's potential is virtually limitless. Overcoming 'programming' that has been inculcated into us from childhood is a great part of this, and I recognise some of these 'mental tattoos' in myself. But I'm not planning on letting them stop me. An old dog CAN learn new tricks <g and I thank you, Mr Buchanan, and ALL of the kind people in this Viewer List who are endeavouring to help me learn.

Cheers, Laura


Hello Mr Smith,

Thank you for taking the time to reply. Your response is most helpful. And yet, it poses even more questions for me -- which is GOOD, in my book! <g

What if one gets a sensory input that one cannot quite describe, something that is out of that person's experience? How would one describe a 'burnt' smell that isn't quite 'burnt' ? I'm at a bit of a loss, since during some of my sessions I've run across sensory input (mainly odours) that I've never experienced before.

I have had sessions where data does come 'fast and furious,' but I'm nowhere NEAR experienced enough to be able to know the difference, intuitively or otherwise. <g But that just points up the powerful need for practice-practice-practice!

Thanks for all the help!

Cheers, Laura


Laura--

You can call me Paul!

What if one gets a sensory input that one cannot quite describe, something that is out of that person's experience? How would one describe a 'burnt' smell that isn't quite 'burnt' ? I'm at a bit of a loss, since during some of my sessions I've run across sensory input (mainly odours) that I've never experienced before.

It happens all the time. IT's useful to practice off-line by trying to think of all the sensory words you can, relating to each of the five sense, then add to your vocabulary. Focus as much as possible on "basic" words--as few syllables as possible, as close to anglo-saxon roots (or whatever one's mother tongue is) as possible. Some things can only be exressed in more complex words--but we do our best! Nevertheless, there are ALWAYS occasions when you "outrun" your vocabulary; sometimes there is no option but to describe it in terms of being "sort of like" something. In this case, you acknowledge it as an analytical expression (but understanding that is has more meaningful content), and continue on with business.

I have had sessions where data does come 'fast and furious,' but I'm nowhere NEAR experienced enough to be able to know the difference, intuitively or otherwise. <g But that just points up the powerful need for practice-practice-practice!

That's right. None of us mastered this stuff right off the bat. It's okay to get it wrong--this is pretty much like getting to know the inside of a room in the dark. You'll never get your bearings if you don't bounce off a few walls in the process ("Wait! Look out for that...<bump chair." :-)

Good luck!

Paul


Hello Paul,

Thank you for allowing me to be more informal. I didn't want to be rude or overly familiar by using your given name uninvited. I suppose that just shows how much of an old poot I really am. <g

Nevertheless, there are ALWAYS occasions when you "outrun" your vocabulary; sometimes there is no option but to describe it in terms of being "sort of like" something. In this case, you acknowledge it as an analytical expression (but understanding that is has more meaningful content), and continue on with business.<<

Would it still be terribly analytical to say, 'it smells of a combination of burnt, earthiness and decomposition plus something else I can't describe? I guess, what I'm getting at with this last is: within structure, are you allowed to say what it ISN'T, or are you allowed to annotate that you sense MORE, but but you're just not able to adequately describe it? Are you allowed to make note of the fact that you sense something else even though you can't put it into words? I know I'm worrying this point to death, but since it appears that analysis (vice description) does seem to get in the way of solid data, I'm making every effort to work round doing any unnecessary analysis, or using vocabulary or actions that would fall into the analytical catagory or outside of structure.

Although I believe I'm beginning to make progress with descriptive vocabulary in the areas of visual, tactile and audio input, I find that taste data, to some degree, and to a much greater extent, olfactory data is baffling me. With taste, I can catagorise things into sweet, sour, salty and bitter, but then I start to fumble. Is 'fruity' a legitimate description for a taste? Flowery for an odour?

Something else that has happened in several sessions: Occasionally I seem to get kinesthetic input, i.e. something tastes 'green' or something sounds 'hot' or somethings feels (tactilely) 'loud.' This mixing of the senses (which I rarely, if ever, have encountered outside of a targetting session) has me somewhat confused -- AND concerned. And it startles me enough to throw me offline. Although this hasn't happened too terribly frequently, it has happened enough for me to want to ask about it. Have you ever had any experience with kinesthesia or kinesthetic session data?

None of us mastered this stuff right off the bat. It's okay to get it wrong--this is pretty much like getting to know the inside of a room in the dark. You'll never get your bearings if you don't bounce off a few walls in the process ("Wait! Look out for thatt...<bump chair." :-) <<

What a beautiful analogy! And how well it fits in with my newbie-type bumblings-about. :-) Now, if there were only an Aspercreme for the subconscious . . . <g

Cheers, Laura


Thanks to everyone for their answers to my questions. I feel like I really starting to get in the right mindset to progress in this study. I have a question about the targets themselves. Is the target the actual site or location of the "target" or the picture of the target or does it matter one way or the other? The reason I ask is that sometimes I also get things like people talking in the background or "hear" footsteps but obviously this is not taking place on the picture. So I guess my question is, does the number tag cue us to the picture or the location or both.

Also since I practice Clinical Hypnotherapy and Applied Kinesiology I have started setting up some ideomotor responses to verify my sensations such as basic "yes" and "no" ideomotor finger and muscle twinges as well as swaying forward and backward to help to get in touch with my subconscious and stay in touch with it. Is this a beneficial habit to get into or will this eventually get in my way?

Thanks again for all the help.

Also, thanks to Laura...you're questions and the subsequent dialogue following them really helped to clarify questions I was having. This is the first on-line discussion group I have been involved in and I think it is a fantastic way to learn.

Mark


Howdy Laura,

<<I find that taste data, to some degree, and to a much greater extent, olfactory data is baffling me. With taste, I can catagorise things into sweet, sour, salty and bitter, but then I start to fumble. Is 'fruity' a legitimate description for a taste? Flowery for an odour?

Seems okay to me. Why not? If a wine can be flowery, and it isn't made of flowers, or candy can smell fruity and it isn't made of fruit, I think those would be descriptives.

You know, when you really hit the fine lines on this sort of thing, experience will be your best teacher. If you say it's fruity and conclude something is fruit-related and it's not, then you'll know that you let that distract you. If you say it's fruity and still perfectly describe a bamboo chair in the desert, then you'll know that you may have been wrong (maybe), or you may have smelled a flower out of camera range of the feedback, but you at least didn't let it distract you from the target, which was not remotely fruity.

Analysis may be preferred to be kept at a very minimum, but the really important part is that you don't let it affect any other data point. There's going to be a point where you're going to need to not only not analyze, but to be able to face monster-sized analytical assumptions and get rid of them. It doesn't hurt to have them, particularly when you're just beginning and are bound to; in a way, learning to avoid them is also practice in learning to get rid of them once you have them. Both are equally important to good skills.

In my opinion, there really is a certain amount of just totally screwing things up required as part of the learning this. I think I may put a few of my own session disasters up here just to make everybody feel better. ;-) It's better to run for the goal and get called out a few times, and learn from that, then to hesitate and never go forward at all lest you don't succeed. I've learned more from what I've done wrong than what I've done right. In fact, often my better results frustrate me, because I don't know "how" I got them, it's not 'tangible' enough to make me satisfied. The mistakes, though, those I can really pounce on and chew on for awhile. So I get a lot of my neurosis out through my mistakes, which for some reason are far more transparent and logical to me than my successes. :-)

<<Occasionally I seem to get kinesthetic input, i.e. something tastes 'green' or something sounds 'hot' or somethings feels (tactilely) 'loud.' This mixing of the senses (which I rarely, if ever, have encountered outside of a targetting session) has me somewhat confused -- AND concerned.

I think they call that synesthesia also, when the senses mix. I have had this plenty, however, I've never had it in RV -- mostly because I haven't done enough practice to risk it (alas. Bad PJ!). Assuming that you haven't done very many good drugs in your life ;-), I'm tempted to think this is a small indicator of real psi ability.

I don't know what to do about it. Maybe Paul or Lyn know. My personal impression is that if it tastes green, then it is just as "green" as if you saw it, felt it, heard it, or touched it. It's worth making a note if the data comes from a different than usual sensory source, because these kinds of things are invaluable to your learning in hindsight.

I suspect that when it comes to this sort of thing, this is where detail notes and study help you learn about yourself. You might, over time and feedback, discover that everytimes you "hear" a color, texture, smell, etc., that it turns out it's always an allegory to an actual sound. E.g., a throaty voice might be texture, a song might be smell, the color yellow might be whistling -- conceptual allegories is what I'm referring to. And yet, you might find that with another sensory, say taste, every time you "taste" a sound, temperature, color, it is in fact literally the end sensory. E.g., if it tastes hot, it might BE hot, if it tastes yellow it might BE yellow. I am inclined to think that whatever the factual feedback demonstrates the answer as, it would be likely that 'however it works' is consistent with a person across all the sensories. There may be no regular or dependable answer, of course.

There's also the possibility that it's two things simultaneously instead of one getting its channel crossed. For instance, if you taste green, it might be interesting to ask yourself what the 'taste' looks like (not the green, the TASTE), and see if you get something like, you "see" salty. I mean, while somewhat in the midst of the sensory, it might not be merely one crossing over into another, but could be two "simultaneous" sensories sort of crashing into each other and crossing paths. Worth a try, just out of curiosity.

Mostly, take notes. Not just during a session, but after, and even in your daily life. CRV is about getting to know yourself, getting in communication with yourself. You'll find that if you keep a detail journal -- not necessarily long narratives, but notes on your experiences, on minor flashes of psi sensories throughout the day, on your dreams, insights, etc., you'll read this stuff in hindsight and it will all seem much clearer to you. A big part of this getting to know yourself is literally just paying attention. Over time, if certain things tend to present themselves "conceptually" to you, or in allegory, you'll come to recognize what those are, and when it occurs, and what it means. But this is one of those things that only experience can teach.

PJ


Hi Mark,

<<Is the target the actual site or location of the "target" or the picture of the target or does it matter one way or the other?

I asked this once myself. The target is the actual site. Now, many people, according to Lyn, RV their own future -- their feedback -- rather than the site. Or try to focus on the paper instead of the 'thing.' The goal is to get to the site. Some people are faster at that than others. Some people's accuracy is more dependent on feedback than others.

Yes, it matters. There's going to plenty at the site that couldn't possibly be in a feedback photo. And there may be things in the photo (page numbers or words for instance) that have no place in the site.

<<The reason I ask is that sometimes I also get things like people talking in the background or "hear" footsteps but obviously this is not taking place on the picture.

There are going to be many data components you'll get that won't have feedback. For instance, if you hear footsteps but there's nobody in the picture, you don't know that there weren't any footsteps, only that you can't SEE anything related to that in the photo. If you say it's cold, and it's a clear blue sky in the photo, you don't know the answer -- it can be freezing and look like that in many places. Even things you feel closer on, that you get conceptuals for, such as "peace" for a church, you can only guess that there is really a sense of 'peace' there, rather than your own overlay.

While it's important to be ruthless about your accuracy with your feedback, it's just as important not to make a decision against yourself as for yourself. It's going to annoy your subconscious if it gives you data and you assume it's wrong without knowing one way or the other, and it may repress what it's willing to give you if that continues. You can't assume correct or incorrect if you don't know.

---- To digress a little bit, I think this is an interesting subject Mark. I don't know if we'll ever know what causes some data.

For instance, I was once in a session, I had gotten city sounds, then a great height, then they busy-grimy feeling I get with city scenes, voices and shuffling and traffic, and then BAM, I had this half second interlude: there's an office, well furnished, with a man sitting at a desk. There are two people, a man and a woman, walking toward his desk. It feels very important, conceptually, that there is a safe in the wall behind a picture in his office, as if there is something the man is not telling the people coming toward him, is hiding. I can feel it all in the "3D" sense I get in target contact, like we're all a geometrical relationship to each other (even the concepts seem to have shape). The two people are in mid-step nearing the desk when I pop in, and the man at the desk is in the middle of a sentence, and just as they stop he finishes, "...ings are not what they seem." BAM, I'm out of it.

Now, where the heck did this come from?! I couldn't tell you. I have no idea. The target, btw, turned out to be an upwards shot of blue-windowed skyscrapers, crowded closely together like in big cities. It could have been something I imagined. Or a scene I once saw in a movie that had a big building like that, that I consciously didn't remember. Maybe something that had actually happened to the guy taking the photograph. Or something remembered by someone walking by the guy taking the photograph. Or merely my distraction because the target feedback had almost nothing in it but a couple shapes, so maybe I was bored and found the nearest interesting thing going on. ;-) Or a million other potential explanations. All I know is, it certainly wasn't included in the target feedback, and although it was specifically a nice executive office like would be in those buildings, that does not mean I can assume I'm right. I figured it was just weird and shrugged it off.

But that's an example of really just not having all the answers to this stuff. Who knows if the data we view that isn't in feedback is really in the site? -- or in the minds of anybody connected in any way with the target, from the people at the source of the photo to the tasker or monitor.

If I focus on the target (literally, the target itself, not the feedback), I have to trust what I get. If there's no feedback, I mark it as "unknown" for the hard data, but if there's some reason to think it might be right, I'm willing to grant myself that 'pat on the back' on an inner level.

<<Also since I practice Clinical Hypnotherapy and Applied Kinesiology I have started setting up some ideomotor responses to verify my sensations such as basic "yes" and "no" ideomotor finger and muscle twinges as well as swaying forward and backward to help to get in touch with my subconscious and stay in touch with it. Is this a beneficial habit to get into or will this eventually get in my way?

My guess is, anything that gets you in touch with your body is a good thing.

However, be aware that the goal in CRV is to get your body to communicate it in a somewhat more permanent form: to write it down, draw it, model it, or otherwise create a physical impression of it. If you're standing and swaying, how would you write data down? Remember, CRV is communicated _while_ data is being collected, not afterward, that's a very important point. I don't know the "CRV" answer to this. My personal answer would be, use whatever works for you outside of your sessions, and this sort of thing is probably very good; but use some means of fixed recording direct from your subconscious when in session. You really do want to get in the habit of training your subconscious to record it, and training yourself to recognize how it records what. You want your subconscious to write it down every time, because after awhile, you recognize right off what it's telling you. If it has half a dozen means of giving you answers, you may get a twitch in your right knee instead of a somewhat more direct form of data. Making the data path from the subconscious to the medium of communication as short and clean and clear as possible is the goal.

PJ


Hi Everybody,

I second the emotion with PJ regarding CRV as a good tool with very practical applications. With structured psi training we are quickly moving into time when everyone will have an opportunity to expand their human potential.

In another email Lyn said that "When working missing children cases, etc., one of the first things you learn is that there are just going to be some target sites for which no amount of "cool-down" or shielding will be preparation enough. It comes with the job."

Does the shielding just come from on the job training - such as emergency medical technicians or police get who are constantly exposed to potentially traumatic experiences. Is it a sort of 'desensitization or is there a discipline which comes with time either through training or experience. I know that this isn't directly related to CRV, and I hope this stays within the scope of our group:

I have had several experiences where I physically felt another person's sadness, or emotional pain while working with a client using a modality called Reiki, which is a form of healing energetic bodywork. What I mean is that I have physically felt something going up my hands and up my arms, and felt emotional pain from the client. After expressing this to someone more experienced in Reiki, he said that you had to will it not to enter your body. After that, I began to disconnect myself from experiencing the pain, but I still had my compassion for a client's well being and their experience. I am not unique in this experience. Does one's will factor into effective shielding?

Regards,

Roger


I sent this out before--but unfortunately yet again to the wrong address!

At 07:41 AM 4/11/97 -0400, you wrote:
<<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....

I'd like to take exception here, if I may. First, while I admit that there at times was a great deal of objective (site related) and personal emotional content related to some of the missions we ran in the military RV unit, I know of no one of whom it could truly be said that they'd had their "reality blasted." All of us, of course, had our concepts of reality changed at least a little--the very nature of what we were doing would dictate that; and, as Lyn said, we did have some pretty harrowing targets we were assigned to address (my personal "favorite" was the sensation of choking to death during the famous Soviet chem-bio lab accident, but the Dachau and ground-zero Hiroshima training sites were pretty vivid as well). But particularly with CRV there are mechanisms built in which can help deal with these issues when properly used. And in fact, I don't believe that a viewer's system will "allow" him or her to experience something that they are not ready for. In the military unit there were some viewers who the ops people knew not to run on certain types of targets because those viewers' subconsciouses would steadfastly refuse to "look" at anything that involved death or suffering. They would accurately describe the setting, and any activities happening around the event in question, but they would never focus on the event(s) the mission was intended to collect against.

The fact is that soldiers in intense combat have much more "reality-blasting" experiences than we in the military RV program ever did. There are a few qualitative differences, of course--a viewer MAY experience a violent event from a different perspective than an observer physically present during the event--perhaps from the perspective of the perpetrator, or even the victim. But there is always the filter of knowing you're "not really there"--even if you fall into a particularly pronounced bi-location (which viewers of course strive to avoid) you know the difference. I'm not saying there's not an impact--because ANY experience we have leaves some sort of mark on us. But I don't want to see this issue blown out of proportion, either.

Sorry for the ranting,

Paul

[Archive Note: Paul H. Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]


END ARCHIVE 06
APRIL 01 1997 TO APRIL 10 1997

A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.


VWR Email Archives Menu
Firedocs Entrance
Top of Page

All contents copyright © 1995-2002 by PJ Gaenir. All rights reserved.