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 eighth archive.
APRIL 17 1997 TO APRIL
BEGIN ARCHIVE 8
<<RV-based sensory inputs (at least for me) come in as half-remembered (but still sometimes quite pronounced) experiences very similar to "real" external sensory inputs.
Interesting you should say that; I've referred to RV feeling "kind of like a memory" myself -- real, and yet, with that only-half-tangibility memory has, and yet, still including the sensories only 'real' things usually have. It's not like revivification though... "like memory" is the closest thing I had to describe it.
<<I was wondering if intent plays any part in differentiating the signal line data from the telepathic overlay?
Whose intent? The tasker's, monitor's, viewer's, or someone else's?
I think one can influence a Viewer's session by intent. It could be experimented with to see the best way to go about doing so; I don't know if the military guys worked on that or not. But the degree of success would probably depend on both the person with the intent (and their psi abilities) and the Viewer's own skill. Other things may factor into it, such as knowing the target will be remote viewed by a certain person or at a certain time.
<<If your mind wants to make up things to fill in the spaces ; - ) might that not occur with total site integration too?
Good question. It's my understanding that the data is usually much higher in quantity and quality on those occasions. That doesn't really mean that 'telepathic overlay' (TOL) isn't existent, but does seem to indicate it is far less. The fact that there is usually full-contact visuals, as well as all other senses, would allow the Viewer some recognition that isn't normally allowed (or often, even encountered) in regular CRV.
From conversation with other Viewers, TOL for some people can be increased in probability by their intensity of desire to succeed in the session. I think that depends on the Viewer though -- for some Viewers, anything seriously invested might actually create an emotional distraction to doing well at all.
<<Also, it would be helpful if someone could talk about "getting into your zone" and if it means different things to different people.
That's really a good point. It does seem to vary from person to person. The only caveat I'd make is that for many people, that phrasing (I know, it's the standard phrasing used) brings to mind some kind of trance or something, and in CRV at least that's really not the case. Some people do better when they're a little bit hyped, like after a lot of coffee and cigarettes, or some exercise; some when they're tired; some when they're relaxed; it really does vary for the individual.
As Lyn has mentioned, this is the whole point of keeping your Viewer Profile (otherwise known as keeping a database on your session details). You don't really know this kind of thing until you can look at the baseline numbers spanning many sessions.
Your statement 'yet ESP as such seems not to care in what language or culture a person etc.' implies the absence of en/decoding. 'Encryption might be occurring but I think only on receiving as in applying our bias to the signal line. Also your statement strikes me as possibly implying that our primary psi sensing occurs outside of the brain but then we have to postulate a mechanism for getting it into the bio interface. Quite challenging.
>> My own suspicion is that it is something akin to Sheldrake's morphic resonance, wherein fundamental, holistic concepts form as a field which can be incorporated into a person's mental makeup. I still have a lot of thinking to do about this, however...
I like your thinking here. I am reminded of the 'psychic' term 'thought form' which I consider inadequate but then what is? A field concept or model implies a dynamic characteristic lacking in 'thought form'.
Has anyone tryed this method from Anglea Thompson of Inner Vision? [formerly innervision, site now closed - archivists note] She offers a beginner CRV program including a book tape and computer program for about $100 US and it looks very attractive to sumone who can't afford a $1000-3 day seminar, or is not quite sure RV suits them. After reading Remote Viewing:The Secret History of Americas Psyic Spies, by John Schnabel, I immediatly went out to pick up Mind Trek, by John McMonagle (interestingly enough, right before I recieved the email that this was a GREAT book for beginners). It would seem that the best method described in both books (haven't findished MIND TREK yet, so I may be wrong here) is that developed by Ingo Swann, where he describes stages and the development of description of the target, pausing for breaks (ie AOL). Does this course teach that. More to the point...What excatly is the best method for someone to learn, or are they mostly the same? I imagine that the tried,true and deveolped method would be the best. Comment on either program (RV101, P>S>I> or that like) would be greatly appreciated. I have tried to become more familer with the learning process and have reaserched many ofthe available sites on the WWW. I hope these are not redundent questions as I'm just new to the list and will probably be more of a "lurker".
To introduce myself, I'm Joel [edited], I'm 19 years old, and a 911 dispatcher in Sarasota County, Florida. I'm employed by the Sheriffs Department and volunteer in their Victim Assistance Program as well. I would like to learn CRV mostly to help w/ finding missing children and working in law enforcement cases I would be working alone, I dont have a monitor. I can't say I have any special psyic skills other then excellent intuition, and have never concidered my self capable of doing anything with that untill reading the afore mentioned books. I'm very new to the subject so please bear with me if I'm off topic. I would LOVE any and all correspondence from the group.
I would like to thank you guys Angela, CM, Dennis, Vic, Joc and PJ for your help.
I have already orderd some of the books.
Since I have decided to stay on your List for some time I think I should introduce myself:
I am 31 years old and working as a commercial pilot (presently a co-pilot on Boeing 737-400). I have always been interested in the paranormal and my mother tells me that I was "seeing things (gone souls)" untill about 6 years old. Oddly I do not remember those "sightings" but apparently my parents had a hard time keeping their babysitters :)
So much for that.....
Greetings from Iceland
<<The new edition of Joe McMoneagle's book is out!
Does anyone know when his other new book will be out? [The "Year 3000" one?]
<<Does anyone know when [Joe McMoneagle's] other new book will be out? [The "Year 3000" one?]
He's finished the writing on it I think, he's just in the publisher discussion/edit phase.
Most of my information about RV has come from Art Bell programs--and that not complete. It's part of the Coast-to-Coast stew for me.
Another Bell Guest has been Sean David Morton. Morton mentioned that he was involved with the Spooky Boys in the 70's. Who were they?
Morton has mentioned that our civilisation hosts THREE TIERS of technology. The first tier or perimeter is the public consumer sector. Shorthand: "junk." What's available there is the cast-off or passed-down stuff for the rubes, slaves, and garlic-eaters (us).
Number 2 tier is military tech: minimum 15 years lead over any buzz present in tier #1. "If you've heard of it, it's obsolete."
#3 tier is "Dreamland"--"Magic"--shadow government stuff.
What does it say about RV now that it's public sector? Tier #1. Is it a special case? The promise is: no more secrets. But it's pretty laborious to access bits and pieces of the Secrets.
When Tesla was swimming amid broad fields of etheric energy, I've heard, he could see details miles away, and experience instant clarity of thought, etc.
Also, I was wondering...I was thinking of having my wife cut out some pictures from National Geographic Magazines, etc., and placing them in some brown evelopes and inscribe them with cue numbers...is this a good way to practice some extra targets...what do you think?
Sorry I've been out of touch. Even my family and clients are getting cranky (let alone my hobbyist friends, like this group!). Have overcommitted the number of fingers I have to put in pies...
<<I am still very new to this kind of e-mail group and so sometimes I am not sure exactly where my mails or going or coming from.
I understand. It's hard to sort out when it's coming from all over, but a software package that will let you direct your incoming mail to certain folders will really help. I now get about 90-120 emails a day. It's getting to where if it isn't patently obvious from the title, and if I don't respond within 5 minutes of seeing it, I just forget about it. If I didn't type about 110wpm I'd never survive....
<<Also, I was wondering...I was thinking of having my wife cut out some pictures from National Geographic Magazines, etc., and placing them in some brown evelopes and inscribe them with cue numbers...is this a good way to practice some extra targets...what do you think?
While it's nicer to have someone less involved with you do it, your wife would do fine (since there may not be other options -- I've had that problem myself). This is the common way to practice. Have her choose reasonably simple shapes and specific focuses to begin with. In other words, avoid too much complexity in the picture. There are a few reasons for this, but the most obvious is because when you're done with a session, you have to go through and determine what data points are facts (or could be assumed to be) and what are not, and this helps your mind understand what you did right/wrong. But if you've got, for instance, an overview of a city, or a shopping mall, then you might be able to get the gestalt from that, but chances are _any_ data you provide could be found there _somewhere_.
One of the worst sessions I ever did I got '100% accuracy' on my facts. Because I was brilliant? No. Because it was a city overview and it contained, or could logically be assumed to contain, darn near every element I came up with. My data was basically _useless,_ despite that none of it could be ruled even "probably wrong." So it's important that you limit your target pool so that the targets are reasonably clear (think of how basic children's picture books are -- a building, a bridge, a person, an animal, a mountain or desert, etc. Singular or plural doesn't matter, just try to have her aim for clarity and some simplicity). When you're beginning this is the case. They get more complex as you go along, and targets are generally chosen based on the stage/phase that you're practicing on.
Given your penchant for touch-sensitivity, you might try some other experiments.... have her put a coin in a certain place, and "think at the coin" about being in that place, leave it for awhile, and then later put it in a numbered envelope. (You could open the envelope, take the coin out and hold it.) See if you can place "where" different coins were prior to her putting them in the envelope. (Tell her to put them in the envelope right at the place where she left them for awhile, don't carry them around the house prior to doing so.) OK, it ain't CRV -- but it might be fun just to give it a try.
I have some questions about this:
>>That's why in the lab, people always view alone; the intent must be as isolated as possible. Having people view different targets at the same time is ripe for serious telepathic interference -- and if they're in the same general area, physiological communications (even unconscious ones, e.g., pheremones) greatly increase that. If you put them on the same target, it will same amazing how they all get the same data... even when it's wrong.
How far apart in space and time do the viewers have to be to limit or negate this kind of interference. I thought that RVing and other Psychic phenomena were independent or at least, not limited by, space, and that even time was not very limiting. Is the psychic interference coming from some other type of signal? (apart from the physiological ones)
I have been zeroing out on my RV practice and have decided to stop until I receive the Inner Vision CRV manual. In the meantime I am curious about how many people in this group have taken an RV course.
Also I would like to get some comments about Courtney Brown's latest message.
1. What do you think about the Cue "OMIT TASKER ENFORCED PERCEPTUALS"? It seems related to the question of viewing a photo itself or the items in the photo. (snow covered ground RVed when their is no snow at the location). The tasker could influence this. There's really two questions here, the cue and the tasker's influence on the photo. Does a target described in words have different properties? (three questions now)
2. Brown's comments about alternative timelines seems to me a circular argument....a no win situation. It follows that there are also multiple pasts. The concept of multiple realities always leads me to believe that if true...we are all talking to ourselves.
3. There are many references to "science" in his statement, but I fail to see any examples or independent verification. I guess I am looking for laboratory conditions whereas perhaps none is required since the general consensus is that there are many protocols/methodologies and all can give about the same results. Of course you can't get feedback on an ET or companion.
4. I can't resist asking.....what about the "Friends"? Any one else have any?
Here's another permutation of the same question.
In recent threads, there has been discussion of creating targets by cutting out pictures from magazines, etc., assigning cue numbers to them, and then practicing remote viewing them. It seems to me there would be a bias or contamination if I were to:
1. cut out the pictures, place them in envelopes, assign cue numbers, and do the remote viewing, because it's possible, that I could draw on my subconscious mind to recall the sequence of events which lead to the assembly the target. or
2. have a partner prepare the target, and then I would remote view them, which presents the possible problem of the viewer receiving information inadvertently through telepathic means.
My question is this - Is this remote viewing or just a good exercise in telepathy?
And is scenario #2 something that occurs in CRV frequently or infrequently when a monitor is in the room, where the remote viewer gains information telepathically from the monitor? (Does the monitor always know what the target is?)
<<It seems to me there would be a bias or contamination if I were to: 1. cut out the pictures, place them in envelopes, ...
About the only way to get around this (and this is not a perfect solution, but better than nothing) is to mix what you've done into an extremely large group of targets, at least some sourced elsewhere, so you don't know what target is coming up next. However, in the lab at least, this kind of target pool would have to be in the hundreds if the Viewer was aware of the target. It really depends on whether you're trying to do 'real and serious' RV or if the targets you originate are a bit more... casual.
<<2. have a partner prepare the target, and then I would remote view
Only if you're RVing alone or with a different monitor, and only if your partner is not aware of what you're doing (e.g., which target at which time).
<<My question is this - Is this remote viewing or just a good exercise in telepathy? And is scenario #2 something that occurs in CRV frequently or infrequently when a monitor is in the room, where the remote viewer gains information telepathically from the monitor? (Does the monitor always know what the target is?)
Good question. The monitor in an RV session NEVER knows the target. (Ever, ever, ever, she says, jumping up and down.) It is not allowed in the formal CRV protocols. The monitor in a _training_ session knows the target -- but that's training. The monitor in an applications session may know a tiny bit _about_ the target, or be told "If the Viewer goes in the direction of 'xyz', let them go there," but they would not know the target itself (e.g., being frontloaded with the knowledge that it is a weapon, or a person, is hardly knowing everything about the target). There is NO WAY to prevent interference -- not just telepathic, but basic hypnotic and physiological communication -- if the monitor knows the target.
<<I have been zeroing out on my RV practice and have decided to stop until I receive the Inner Vision CRV manual.
Do you want to talk about your process? Maybe there's some tips some of the people around here will have.
As much as I support training, and as much as I think that "CRV" technically requires it and that one is greatly improved by it, I really do not think it should be necessary for somebody who wants to work on getting basics and getting better. Keep in mind that CRV is a structure; the psi itself is an inherent talent, and you already have it. CRV tends to introduce people to it like it's novel to them, I admit. But it's there already.
<<In the meantime I am curious about how many people in this group have taken an RV course.
I am still in training with Lyn Buchanan.
<<1. What do you think about the Cue "OMIT TASKER ENFORCED PERCEPTUALS"? It seems related to the question of viewing a photo itself or the items in the photo. (snow covered ground RVed when their is no snow at the location). The tasker could influence this. There's really two questions here, the cue and the tasker's influence on the photo. Does a target described in words have different properties? (three questions now)
That's a very insightful question. Now, my main source of ideas from this comes from Kathleen Gillis [edited in archive per Gillis request: Gillis is a Canadian who learned the methods of ARV in the 1980's. - End editing). She has done quite a bit of informal experimentation with the subject of tasking, and has had some amazing results. Now, I don't know the full controls that were in place during all this, mind you. But I do know that (a) it is well known that everybody who 'touches' the target (has something to do with it) between its existence and it getting to the Viewer is, in some way, included in the overall consciousness of the target itself; and (b) Kathleen reports that people respond to cues in the tasking -- even those they are NOT TOLD ABOUT but are included somewhere in the paperwork -- as literally as if they were hypnotic commands. Not only do her Viewers tend to obey the cues in the (blind) tasking, but she can even make a list of things, not just directions but actually tell them, "experience XYZ," and the Viewer will do it -- not only that, they tend to do it in exactly the order it is listed. She said she finally got to where she would interject certain things in the lines of blind-tasking such as "see this" or "experience this" because it told the monitor exactly where the person was during the session. Now, I suspect there's some lack of controls here (as far as monitor blinding) so that has to be considered. Still, it is just one example of the many areas for investigation that RV science hasn't (that I know of) had much time to look into.
As for 'what the target is' or how it is described: the target is whatever the tasker THINKS it is. If I write down that the target is a rock formation in Colorado or Utah, and I have a picture of that, but I am really thinking at the same time about my trip to the Grand Canyon which it kind of reminds me of, and how deep and yawning it was, I'm willing to bet that the Viewer will pick up some of my G.C. impressions. How good and experienced the Viewer is will determine how affected they are by these. As for the photo or the target itself, again, that depends on the tasker's "intent." If they want you to RV the photo, then the site is not the target, the photo is.
<<2. ...comments about alternative timelines seems to me a circular argument....a no win situation. It follows that there are also multiple pasts. The concept of multiple realities always leads me to believe that if true...we are all talking to ourselves.
This probably comes down to personal theory. I have been very influenced by the writings of Jane Roberts and Seth, and have had some pretty amazing personal experiences that were educational in those areas, so I happen to believe the rather holographic "probability" scenario -- but like you said, it follows that there are alternate pasts -- as well as alternate presents. Obviously, it's mind boggling, and there's no easy answer. As for talking to ourselves... well, if you mean sort of a 'projection of the reality inside you to be your outside world-experience,' I think you're right about that. It has actually been my supposition all along that CRV was not a matter of asking your subconscious to talk to some kind of "outside ether," but rather, that reality-as-you-know-it is like a blueprint inside you that is mirrored outside you, so you go inside to look at the 'real picture.'
Of course, by this theory, people like Mr. Dames have been destroyed in earth cataclysms a dozen times now, and people like Dr. Brown have been talking to real live aliens all along. I am personally open to that being true; that reality is more flexible than we suppose.
But that goes considerably beyond the scope of basic CRV. ;-) And is a little far out for most people without a good background in philosophy and metaphysics.
<<There are many references to "science" in his statement, but I fail to see any examples or independent verification. I guess I am looking for laboratory conditions whereas perhaps none is required since the general consensus is that there are many protocols/methodologies and all can give about the same results. Of course you can't get feedback on an ET or companion.
Verification: There are quite a number of impressive people involved in the scientific side of RV. However, none of them that I know of have any relationship to, or verification of, Dr. Brown's work. Which doesn't mean he's wrong. Just means that at this point he probably doesn't have any verification, which is hardly surprising given that there are only two funded RV projects going on that I know of.
<<Where perhaps none is required, since the general consensus...
AUGH! Stop, you're giving me a heart attack! :-) The first unbreakable rules of real RV is that it MUST be done under proper controls and it MUST have feedback. And if those conditions are in place, then it MUST be able to replicated in general -- that's kind of a follow-on "given."
There are indeed many different methodologies. There is only ONE protocol -- protocol means "controls," and those are required no matter what methodology a person is working in. Now, I have to say honestly that there is in fact no reason to suspect that they give the 'same results', but this is not because of any one up-manship on CRV's part: it's simply that no other forms of RV, other than ARV and some forms of ERV (under lab controls) have had the opportunity to be lab tested and prove themselves. Some of the 'new' methods, derivatives of CRV, such as TRV and SRV, may for all I know be brilliant and the best thing since crystal balls. But until they get some real scientists and independent verification, so that they can both stand on their own and be compared to what has already been tested, they simply cannot 'prove' anything one way or the other. Until we can actually test these things comparatively, we really have no way to know what works, or how well, or how well "compared to" something else. CRV has been tested, both in the lab and in the military (especially). The others haven't, but that doesn't mean they aren't equal or even better, who knows. It just means they aren't proven.
<<I can't resist asking.....what about the "Friends"? Any one else have any?
I've met plenty of "those kinds" of friends (and enemies!) in my life -- but none via CRV. Alas, my interest in CRV is strictly real-world, factual oriented. How dull, huh? ;-)
>1. cut out the pictures, place them in envelopes, assign cue numbers, and do the remote viewing, because it's possible, that I could draw on my subconscious mind to recall the sequence of events which lead to the assembly the target.
General recommendation is that you have someone else pepare targets for you. Lyn suggests you make an exchange out of this (assuming you know someone who practices RV locally, though you could work out a target exchange by mail with someone)--i.e., you make targets for the other person, and the other person makes targets for you, which you actually address somewhat in the next question:
>2. have a partner prepare the target, and then I would remote view them, which presents the possible problem of the viewer receiving information inadvertently through telepathic means.
Yes, you might encounter telepathy in this regard instead of RV (to which one smart alec once remarked, "Oh, darn. ONLY telepathy; how boring..."). One IS of course, still being psychic. On the other hand, that's not exactly the point of remote viewing. One must first have the intent of actually viewing the physical target. Further, one can tell if the target has been addressed if one reports data about it that isn't contained in the feedback package --particularly if for example one reports a flowing waterfall in the summer when the feedback package shows a frozen one in the winter. A classic example of this is when in the early days of the SRI program a viewer (Pat Price, I believe it was) was RVing a secret SOviet facility, and reported on a large traveling crane that none of the imagery showed. Sure enough, updated imagery revealed the crane.
>And is scenario #2 something that occurs in CRV frequently or infrequently when a monitor is in the room, where the remote viewer gains information telepathically from the monitor?
This CAN happen. But beyond training, the monitor seldom knows what the target is. Often (i.e., missing children cases and such), NOBODY knows what the answer to the RV tasking is.
Here's something I've been thinking about. While I've heard it said, by Lyn Buchanan, that creative people generally make talented remote viewers, I'm wondering about the reverse: what's the impact of extensive remote viewing training on the creative person's creative abililities?
For the purposes of this discussion let's say that creativity is the ability to tap into a stream of consciousness, an idea flow, and stick there for awhile. Also to retrieve at least some elements of that flow and make them concrete in this reality, by writing, painting, composing music, and so on.
OK, the similarity of that description to the process of remote viewing is obvious. So where's the difference?
The difference is that the creative process requires an absolutely loose rein. That horse has got to be able to go *anywhere* it wants to. The idea is *no interference* from the conscious mind. The conscious mind just observes. (Again, sounds a lot like RVing...in some ways.)
But...RVing implies a judgement. Some of that stream of consiousness is "right" and some isn't. The purpose of the rigorous methodology is to differentiate between the two, and pretty early on in the game, by creative standards. The creative person may later decide that some ideas are "right" for their project and toss out the others, but most creative people know they must keep these two processes completely separate, or risk polluting the raw flow of symbols and ideas with flow-stopping judgements from the conscious mind. Creative people operate with a toggle switch that's marked "right brain" and "left brain" with seemingly no inbetween.
In RVing, both sides of the brain are engaged simultaneously, I would guess. The conscious mind isn't just observing the flow of ideas/symbols, it's also observing the process *and is making judgements about the rightness of that process*. The stream of consiousness, rather than being allowed to run up the full depth of the river bank, is being run through a sluice -- to change analogy horses in mid-stream. Only some of the water runs through the sluice and only that water is being observed by the observer.
So, my question is: If I get too well trained in sluice observing, what will happen to my ability to perceive the full river flow? The part of the conscious mind that is evaluating the process...can that later be turned off for a more untamed run? Does it need to be?
The sluice/stream is still part of the river. If you can feel the water, how can you lose contact with the river?
I think you're golden. I don't feel you're in danger of losing your creativity unless you choose to. ( Both to think & to feel = to know ) Thanks, Skye, you just blessed me. I think RV will always need BOTH the mind & the heart, BOTH the left & the right.
However, I do understand your "logical" concerns from a left-brain perspective. I'm sure the teachers will have a better answer.
Well, now I understand what "OMIT TASKER ENFORCED PERCEPTUALS" is all about. Ref C. Brown's Ltr at Farsight.com on 22 Apr 97. Sorry i'm so slow. I guess RVing the future is not as simple as it seems. Paul keeps refering to the problem with targeting, and now I think I'm beginning to understand. The psyche of the tasker of the targets potentially affects the results, even in double blind structure. Maybe there is a built-in safeguard in CRV that i'm unaware of? I'm still struck with Morehouse's insight (in Psychic Warrior) that RVing the future was impossible. Maybe, that was just his initial belief. I've heard Paul say that is possible, just infinitely harder. And I know the declassified occurrences are there, i.e., Paul's STARK incident (Schnabel p.363-4).
Well, I'd settle for a real-time out-bounder right now. Although the concept of "default timeline" is intriguing. I've got alot more work to do on "space/time". I'll let you teachers worry about "default timelines" and the year 3000 although the future is as fascinating as the past to all of us. I can't wait to read the second McMoneagle book!
Maybe, someone will invent a training target database using computer-generated algorithms and the exploding content database of WWW. Maybe this will be a way to solve the statistical randomness problems. For operational targets, can the suggestion "OMIT", work? I'm clueless. It's <<<SRI/SAIC Time>>>
Al least C. Brown had the courage to admit a possible problem with their results. I commend him for that. It looks like NYC is safe for now. But, I think that nuclear leakage out of the old Warsaw Pact is still a huge potential problem. Thanks all for listening!
For those interested our RV group have set up a target practice method which seems to work quite well. I went out and bought 10 secondhand copies of the National Geographic magazine (at 50 cents each) then sat down with a razor cutter and removed 139 pages which contained likely RVing pictures. I shuffled these round and placed them in a box on the bottom shelf of our low level coffeee table. I had also purchases 3 larger type business size mailer envelopes which I placed alongside the box of targets. Each morning I lean over the coffee table and select 3 pictures from the pile of 139. I place these into the 3 envelopes. All this is done "blind". I do all this by feel, as I cannot see thru the coffe table top.
We then work on these 3 "random" targets.
We are starting to get an increasing number of correct "hits" which makes our members quite excited. However I should mention that we all initially practiced on the RV101 RV training system....without this initial practice I don't think we would be having much success with the coloured pictures. My impression is that the RV process has to be learnt from the very basics....same as learning the scales before attempting to play tunes on a piano. After a certain level of expertise has been aquired I will be encouraging my group members to take a commercial RV course with a qualified instructor, as I have done.
The idea is to start with the RV101 home-course, then progress to coloured pictures...then take a commercial course...in that order. At the same time as RVing the coloured pictures, you could do "outbounder" practice. But just like learning the scales before playing the piano........you need the theory and practice exercises that the RV101 provides. The exercises in this course provide "visualisation stimuli" practice which is vital to successful RVing. Without them I don't see how RVing could be learnt effectively at home.
Well...maybe it could....but there would be an awful lot of "hit and miss" results.
Good luck everyone.
Lyn, PJ or anyone with words of wisdom for me:
Recently I was trying a sort of target (a magazine picture my friend had cut out for me). During the viewing or experiencing I should say....I got the sensation of being very short of breath and felt very flushed and light-headed. The feedback was a photograph from a magazine of a whale rescue...is this a normal experience....since the rescue had obviously already taken place how could I experience those sensations and how can I guide myself away from these feelings to focus more on a true CRV session?
Any suggestions, words of wisdom, criticism...all equally appreciated and needed.
END ARCHIVE 08
APRIL 17 1997 TO APRIL 26 1997
A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.
Top of Page