firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 009
.


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 ninth archive.


APRIL 26 1997 TO MAY 03 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 9

Hi all,

I was wondering if someone could clarify the different "stages" of CRV work such as what is involved in a Stage 1, 2, 3, etc.

Also, on the creativity issue...it seems to me that most everything is creative. There is creativity in structure and in chaos. There is even creativity in appreciation of creativity! I think there is room for many perceptions in the RV field. CRV may utilize a more structured approach which appeals to my sensibilities, but I think it in no way negates the creativity of the act itself. I think Paul stated it very eloquently...thanks, Paul.

Vickie


Skye--

At 08:58 AM 4/26/97 -0700, you wrote:

>>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.

Sorry, I don't find this description of creativity to be particularly compelling. For me, creativity is the result of seeing the connections between things, of exploring the meanings of things or the qualities of materials, and synthesizing them to produce novel interpretations that speak to people's sense of aesthetics and wonder. I find it to be an active exercise, drawing insights from within myself and using them to manipulate things in the physical universe to communicate those insights; or, alternatively, of happening upon fortuitous accidents in the natural and/or human world and exploiting them to produce something of beauty or meaning. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with dipping into an idea flow and letting stuff come to me.

Now, this is the opposite of CRV, which strives to strip all imagination and subjective analytic contributions from the signal line which we suppose carries to us objective information from the "real world." This of course would tend to support your concern about CRV being problematic for creativity. However:

>>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.)

I hope you'll forgive me if I foam at the mouth a little. I also, BTW, greatly appreciate you providing me this opportunity to climb up on one of my favorite soapboxes <g>.

For some reason, our present culture has gotten the curious notion that creativity can only exist in anarchy. I don't know how many times I have heard someone imply that discipline and structure somehow compromise creativity. Indeed, there are educational theorists who even suggest that children's little creative engines will somehow be destroyed if they are required to color within the lines.

However, as far as I can tell, there is no evidence to support these idiotic ideas, and in fact there are many concrete examples that demonstrate just the contrary. I can't think at the moment of ANY painter, sculptor, writer or composer of any lasting significance who didn't follow one set of rules or another in striving for creative ideals. Even those that violated established rules did so in a controlled way (though in rare circumstances the controlling rules may have ultimately been the laws of physics--since no one, excepting perhaps RVers, has managed to violate THOSE ;-) After all what artist, no matter how unfettered by the cultural codes of his/her time, isn't still forced to work within the rules demanded by the nature of tools and materials?

>>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.

I disagree mightily with this! Creation is nothing BUT a series of judgements between right and wrong, good and bad, good and better. One must judge every brush stroke against the standards of the capabilities of the tools and materials, the aesthetic gestalt of the painting, and the ultimate goal the finished painting is meant to achieve. Every note of a symphony, and every power chord in a punk song must work with the rest of the composition, which itself must fit within the tradition of which it is an example. Even when such things depart from the 'standard,' they may not depart too far, for then they will cease being intelligible to those who were meant to appreciate them.

>>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.

Indeed, to achieve anything, creativity MUST be channeled. A large puddle of water lying on the ground will soon disappear into the dirt and be of no further use. That same volume of water controlled and channeled by a garden hose exhibits great force and direction.

I remember past days when as an art major in college I heard a number of fellow students smugly reject the notion that they needed to learn to draw to become painters--in fact, it might hinder their "creativity." I guess they didn't realize that most of the painters of any stature--whether representational or non-representational (or like Picasso, both) were competent draftsmen first. Rather than stifle their creativity, it abetted it. One cannot create without resources and tools, and that is what disciplined skills really are.

>>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?

I have a friend at church who is an internationally-known mathematician, and at the same time a nationally-known sculptor (the Jaime Escalante award for the nation's best teacher of the year is his work, and he has major pieces in the permanent collections of several universities--Berkley among them--and museums). One must only recall Alberts Schweizer and Einstein, both accomplished violinists, and Winston Churchill, who was also a quite competent impressionist painter. All three could be highly analytic in their thinking. But they were also immensely creative as well.

Though I realize you have no way of knowing this--I am probably as good an example and the best answer you will find to your question. I've done a lot of RVing over the past decade and a half, but I have also done a fair amount of art as well. If anything, my creativity has prospered since I've been an RVer. Learning CRV has never seemed to be a hindrance (except as far as inevitable time limitations are concerned :-).

Well, I apologize for this lengthy and impassioned diatribe when a simple "No, CRV won't hurt a person's creativity," would have sufficed. One thing I've never denied is being opinionated!

Best wishes, and sorry for being disagreeable,

Paul

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


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.


Dear Mark and Readers,

I come from the future school as well as the old school; there is a vast difference between the nows. All the life forms existences - living and dying are related to some extent and can be accessed by what others describe as psycho-telemetry. Those with personality are most accessable by those who have personalities, that includes the past records, the present records (or doings) and the potential of repeats with a little different twist each time. All the future must lead to the Divine Plans of Light and Life. I know, how can you prove it? But I tell you by the very fact you search for the proof you are it. Man as he exists now is in his latent stage of senses (sensing) and talents that parallel these new senses. Normally developed man has approximately 12 senses. Don't ask Me to name them now, but even as I mention this you know it is true. I don't claim to be an expert insomuch as explaining all, but I experience much. This is difficult for Me to share and explain to others. I also have difficulty with the terminology of the viewing process, I would like to become more learned of such. I approach much of what I do through the inner prepersonal spirit and othe celestial angels. I understand that in the scientific necessity of unbiased proof other than subjective methods are necessary for scientific validation. This is probably one of My difficulties, as well as some others that have no idea that there is something called remote viewing. All I can state as fact is constant communication is a necessity, and that entails having enough time and money for total dedication as well as an objective purpose in such participation.

Sincerly CM


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?

Comments?

Skye


Dear Skye and Readers,

I have been experiencing the corpus christi also, meaning the connecting of the Left and Right Brain. On some planets the beings are one-brained, on others two-brained such as this one, one still others they are three-brained. During an early experimental stage and artifical third brain was planted on this planet. It works with the spinal column, which serves as the artifical third brain. I would suggest anyone that wants to investigate this further, refer to the Urantia Book as it is a good source and has never done Me wrong in connecting these many things of this day together. I use the spinal impulses for a third brain to link the hemispheres or two brains together. Pesonally I'm surprised that man hasn't approached the third eye, as they say, in such a manner that it could be scientifically or anatomologically ascertained to be real when it is a reality to so many beings. This does not mean you have to close your eyes to use it. All three may work together. When it is connected to the spinal chord I find spirit reception most well, though I must admit the picture does not give the greatest clarity except when I rest the body, usually in the horizontal position.

This is just My experiences others I'm sure differ. However, sharing is a course as well.

Sincerely CM


Hi Paul,

Boy, if Skye was shyer she'd probably crawl under a piece of furniture after that last response. Lucky for us she's a mixer-upper if there ever was one. ;-)

I think you guys just did a beautiful job of describing creativity in both cases, simply from different perspectives and different personalities. I am more inclined to Paul's sense of it, but (especially in music) have experienced enough of the 'totally open flowing with another stream of inspiration" to know what Skye is talking about and know that creativity often happens that way (and I suspect more for some people than others).

(Paul) <<For some reason, our present culture has gotten the curious notion that creativity can only exist in anarchy. I don't know how many times I have heard someone imply that discipline and structure somehow compromise creativity.

I was amazed to find, in songwriting (sorry this is straying OFF CRV a bit for a moment), that I in fact did extremely well when I laid out a rigid set of guidelines and requirements for myself, and just like in structured writing exercises, often did my best work under those conditions. One might say that living in a culture as we all do, there's really no way to not have one's creativity be structured; the most inspirational music comes from one of the most highly organized (germanic) cultures the world has known.

However, this is why over my life I've been drawn to things like martial arts, music and business -- they were all structured and disciplined environments. (Too many planets in Virgo and Scorpio maybe.) I don't think that's for everybody.

(Paul) <<Creation is nothing BUT a series of judgements between right and wrong, good and bad, good and better. One must judge every brush stroke against the standards of the capabilities of the tools and materials, the aesthetic gestalt of the painting, and the ultimate goal the finished painting is meant to achieve.

I think in your creativity it works that way, and that combination of creativity and intellect may be one reason why you're such a good RVr. I think in many people's creativity it doesn't work that way, though. 'Opening up to anything' including putting your brush through the canvas in rage or crashing discords on the piano is as much a part of creativity as a structured, "Yes, that fits in nicely" is. Different people just do it differently, and allow different levels of 'letting go and losing structure.' Or so it seems to me.

I think the more "in the stream of it" kind of creativity is often mistaken for (or may be) a form of "channeling," though I would say in the sense of "energy or one's subconscious," not in the form of other entities. :-) But what do I know...

PJ


It is My understanding that to the infinite there is no separation between superconsciousness, consciousnes, and subconsciuosness. Subconsiousness is just another way of talking or seeing things that have been taken for granted. Or that's just the way it is.

CM


CM,

Note: one of the requests in the list rules is that you use some kind of name. Doesn't have to be your real name, just something people are comfortable calling you. Unless you really go by CM in real life which seems rather unusual. :-)

<<I would suggest anyone that wants to investigate this further, refer to the Urantia Book as it is a good source and has never done Me wrong in connecting these many things of this day together. >>

I hope I'm not being overbearing in a way that harms this list, but do you think we could skip ultra religious and alien stuff? Urantia being both. (You might wish to consider chatting on Psi-Tech's board about Urantia, I have noticed some rather specific comments from Mr. Dames over the years which ties into that particular set of philosophy.) I've nothing against philosophy, but Urantia ... well, I've long experience with it and the people affected by it, and I have something of a knee jerk reaction to it as being overbearing religion, not just philosophy. (Besides, it sounds just like the goons you get from a Ouija board.. not by coincidence I suspect. You can RV these goons too, but it ain't CRV.)

However if you can find a way to tie all this directly into CRV, be my guest. :-)

PJ


Since I've nothing else to offer, 'just wanted you to know I'm still here, listening; maybe learning.

Appreciate your question, re. Stages 1, 2, 3, etc., Vickie.

Re. 'creativity': From my persective as novice (eavesdropper) 'seems like you've distilled things very well.

Bob


Vickie said, "There is creativity in structure and in chaos. There is even creativity in appreciation of creativity"

How beautiful! Maybe there is BOTH an "animus" and an "anima" of creativity. Look out, Carl. Viva la difference! Is there BOTH chaos in structure AND structure in chaos?

I don't profess to know if there is an optimal distribution in CRV at my experience level. I leave that to the teachers. But I suspect we are all finding that mix of "chaos in structure" or "structure in chaos" that works for us.

Joe McMoneagle in his book MIND TREK (p105) says;

WOW! How marvelous! The individual "hero's" quest--(ala Joseph Campbell) no wonder RV is so compelling. The parallels to the individual spiritual path are stunning!

Blessings,

vic


Mark here,

I have really been contemplating my basic problems the process of RV as I know (which isn't a great deal but I am learning). I realize that I really need to get into a training course sometime in the near future and hopefully will but until then...please be patient. What I am in the process of getting around to is....sometime back someone wrote that I should work on my belief system in regards to RV. I have been trying to think about just how to do that...because it seems when I am in the process of doing CRV I don't feel my belief system really influencing my information gathering that much...I mean I am sure that it is to an extent but most of the time I feel fairly objective rather than subjective in regard to the stream of info coming to me. What exactly is a belief system that is geared toward RV, especially CRV.

I have also noticed in my last couple of sessions that I am starting to "awaken" to sounds and vibrations, a buzzing kind of sensation...I don't know what this means but I feel I am on the verge of another breakthrough in the process.

Thanks to all,

Mark


Also, PJ wrote in a prior e-mail..."but what do I know?" - Well, from what I have read so far....quite a lot.

I tip my hat to you. If you didn't comment on some of the things you do... people who are afraid of sticking their neck out at this stage to ask questions might not get the clarity they do, me for one.

Thanks again all,

Mark


Mark, I wasn't around for this part of the conversation, so I might be off-base here, but it seems that they were perhaps referring to your beliefs about psycic functioning in general, your beliefs about participating in such a thing as remote viewing. This isn't a procedure that's exactly applauded in our society...quite the contrary.

While some general statements could probably be made for most all of us in this regard, it's important to find the exact wording/imagery that accompanies your beliefs about such things. Some of this will no doubt stem from specific instances in your childhood, things you've read or been exposed to. Those words/images will be uniquely yours. Find them and you'll learn a lot. Defuse them, and you'll have removed one more layer of blinders.

Sorry to sound so much like a shrink...but there it is. <g>

Skye


Skye--

Whoa (as Dave Barry would say)! This is starting to get fun.

>>Several reasons for our apparent disagreement. First, Paul, I think you got so excited to have a chance to run your tape about creativity that you didn't completely listen to what I said. Most of what you say below is related to what I described as the second part of the creative process...the "left brain" part, the judgement part that comes later. First there needs to be the inspiration for the artistic creation. That leap of association or just plain weird perception that connects the dots in a way that hasn't been done before. That part of the process is what I was mainly concerned with.

Okay, I agree that the egg comes first in the creativity chicken-or-the-egg question. But I disagree that judgement comes later. I am convinced that one starts to judge the instant one develops the first creative stroke. There is a clear analogy here with RV, where AOL is sparked by the very first spike of the "psychic" signal line through the liminal threshold into consciousness. And I think this judging/analytical process continues from that point on.

Second I'm a writer, not a visual artist, and perhaps the experience is a bit different. I literally tap into a subterranean flow of words. When I'm really "in the flow" there's finished copy just waiting for me to grab it. For that to happen, I need to stay out of the way and not try to edit the copy as it flies by. (I've even had the experience of "seeing" a book, my book, bound and printed and heard myself subvocalizing the content -- although trying to hold this stable enough to "transcribe" it was more than I was able to manage at the time.)

I've done quite a bit of writing myself--fiction as well as expository (though I've never managed to publish any fiction...)--so i know what you mean about the "flow of words." Interestingly enough, the Army is teaching approximately this same approach in the writing portion of the Command and General Staff course (yes, the Army teaches writing ;-)--let it all flow out on paper, then impose order on it after you've got your thoughts down. (This is somewhat like the unofficial motto of the Air Defense Artillery Corps--when asked how they tell an enemy aircraft from a friendly, they say--"We don't. We shoot 'em all down, then sort 'em out on the ground!)

And, again I agree, serious editing awaits completion of the rough draft. However, even in free-flow every word you put down is the result of some judgement call. And the fact that, despite its roughness, your first draft conforms somewhat generally to reasonable English word-order and sentence-structure conventions indicates you have imposed structure on it even as it flowed from whatever your creative source might be. This immediate process is admittedly more right-brain than left--but the left brain is nonetheless engaged. The tighter editing that comes later is certainly left-brain dominated, but there is STILL right-brain involvement (one must keep analysis honest, after all! :-)

>>More often, though, the writer gets that flow of words and they are not necessarily finished copy. It's sloppy -- you should see the pages of my rough drafts when I'm writing in long hand! About 50% ends up stuffed in spirals in the margins of the paper. The word choices are leaden, the sentences have dangling parts sticking out all over the place, but there are ideas there that are worth a million, once they are cut and polished.

Sounds like a good CRV session transcript!

>>To me, most of what you said related to the second part of the creative process, that cutting and polishing.

Nope, this part I agree comes later. What I was talking about--at least in my case--happens cheek-by-jowl with the creative process. It IS part of the creative process. Both hemispheres come together like one of Hegel's dialectics to produce a synthesis that far exceeds the sum of the parts.

<<There's a reason that grammar rules have developed as they have -- most of the time they lead to more logical, easier to read copy. No, there's a reason we don't "draw outside the lines" often and that's because no one would be able to recognize our image for what it is. There has to be a common language. (though in rare circumstances the controlling rules may have ultimately been the laws of physics--since no one, excepting perhaps RVers, has managed to violate THOSE ;-)
>>Not to get off-topic, but the "laws of physics" are broken every day, so I don't know if "laws" is the best label for them. "Myopic belief system more deeply entrenched due to fear of the unknown" is probably more appropriate.

I guess I'm not sure what you understand by the "laws of physics." No one to my knowledge has yet successfully subverted the law of gravity, nor reversed entropy, nor contradicted the laws of fluid and thermodynamics. These same principles and their fellows define the chemical behavior of pigments, the action of brush bristles and pallet knife, the activity of adhesives, the tonal qualities of musical instruments (whether acoustic or electric), the relations of acoustic vibrations, and to a surprising degree the linguistic behavior of our brains. All these things impose a structure on us whether or not we want to be free of them.

>>Agreed. This is cutting and polishing creative process stuff. But Paul, how did the composer get the melody line to begin with? Didn't she just hear it? Find herself humming it to herself in the shower or some such?

Indeed. But the melody line is only the sand grain around which the pearl is formed. The largest part of the creative process lies in how one takes that seed and turns it into a full chorus, an orchestral masterpiece, a Sistine Chapel, a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel. But I think I have finally realized the root of our supposed disagreement--and it's mostly my fault, I think. I had not keyed on your coupling of the word "inspiration" with creativity until just now. To me, inspiration is what comes to us, seemingly completely outside our control; creativity is what we do with that inspiration and involves--I personally believe, anyway--the full resources of our minds (right-brain and left).

And if we both now understand inspiration in the same way, then I can make an even stronger case as to why CRV does not interfere with it. The whole intent of the CRV structure is to strip away from the signal line (i.e., "inspiration") the subjective analytical conclusions that the viewer's mental apparatus automatically attaches to anything perceived (whether it be sensory, intuitional, or "psychic" in origin). The whole point is to objectify a signal in its purity. And the judgements one is to make are between whether what SEEMS to be perceived is truly signal, whether it is subjective interpretation of signal, or whether it is personal imagination in place of signal. So, interestingly enough, in a certain sense learning to CRV could possibly ENHANCE one's "creativity."

>>Same here. BTW, I kind of like the idea of anarchy, but that's another subject altogether.

Somewhere I had a great quote about anarchy--something about anarchy being the opiate of the intellectual (or maybe that was "revolution is the opiate of the intellectual"). Oh, well. Perhaps we can wind this discussion down here--both of us declare victory and retire from the field...before the Air Defense Artillery guys show up.

Paul

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


Hi Joe,

I've had a lot of questions about the "tasker overlay" issue in the last few days, so I thought I'd respond to you and copy the Viewer email group while I was at it. (This is only to you. You can forward it to the others on your email copy list if you wish.)

Regarding Dr. Brown's decision that The Farsight Institute would add a phrase to all their tasking, that being "OMIT TASKER ENFORCED PERCEPTUALS" :

1. Dr. Brown is right -- tasker overlay can be and often is a consideration. Overlay can come from anywhere; it is generally strongest with any consciousness that has 'touched the intended target' between its designation as a target and its Vewing. That includes not only the tasker and the monitor (even if the monitor is blind, btw), but even a secretary who might have correlated the targets with numbers.

There's actually two things involved; one would be TP, and that's mostly an issue with the tasker and in particular the monitor (who also has physiological and other issues at play, even via telephone); and apart from that (though related), there's 'influencing the target.' This is still theory, but I believe that we have to accept that "consciousness interacts," if we're going to use that theory to explain RV... that when you RV something, your perception of that target in fact becomes one of the aspects of the target itself, or at the very least, 'stuck to it'. This would have a lot to do with why high-media targets are both so easy and so difficult. A few million people assuming, expecting and imagining something is going to affect it. In most cases (e.g., wonders of the world, major landmarks) this might make targets easier to view; they have a stronger impact. But those are pretty straightforward. Take a target where the truth is unknown, and yet which millions of people have ideas about, and it's going to be difficult to separate the overlay of massive consciousness from the target itself.

2. Regarding the realization that these overlays exist and that you can task around them, this is already know, and it's something I'd expect Brown to have covered with Ed Dames during training, but I guess Ed never told him, so (like many things, apparently) Brown has done a nice job of having to reinvent a wheel so to speak, but he's also put a lot more new thought into it than it probably had before, which is a good thing for everybody in the field.

Buchanan refers to that as "the Tasker's cat," student slang for tasker overlay. (In use, the phrase represents biased tasking; either mentally or verbally. Usually verbally. But mentally is considered one of the options.)

3. Regarding tasking around this, again Dr. Brown is correct -- one nice thing about the mind is it'll pretty much do whatever you ask if you just ask clearly. I remember Lyn once explaining to me (about a year ago when I was in the midst of this), how even during an active session, even working alone, you can re-task specific things. For instance, I'm very sensitive to perfectly round shapes and to both motion and growth (a type of motion) of any kind, and sometimes when I tune into a target, I've been so overwhelmed by those qualities that I couldn't do anything else and just sat there drawing circles on the paper like an idiot. :-) Lyn told me to retask and simply say, "describe everything BUT the motion" or "omit the data pertaining to the shape of this object", or "ignore {xyz}..." it can be done as many times in a session as you like, and it can be done by the Viewer themselves.

Often certain details can be included up front in the original tasking as well if desired.

Lyn doesn't (that I know of) make a point to include in the official tasking the direction to ignore potential tasker overlay unless he has reason to believe it's necessary and that's pretty seldom. But he did make it clear to me that this was one of many options during or related to a session. I think it's a good idea to include it in the tasking and is unlikely to hurt anything even if it wasn't. I have my own personal opinions on the subject and they mostly say, "Spell out everything."

Regarding tasking in general, about 8 months ago I had a long conversation with Kathy Gillis in Canada; she trained in basic CRV with physicist Russell Targ back in the early 80's. She's really pretty brilliant and has a lot of good ideas; she has a background in hypnosis and shamanic/archetype studies (like me) so we hit it off great. Kathy's done quite a bit of experimentation on the subject of creative tasking, and she's found some fabulous things, such as that you can make a whole list of things in the (blind) tasking -- including "experiences" and "perspectives" as well as basic data collection -- and the Viewer will not only follow it, but will usually do so right down in the line in the order it's written out. She's done some work using RV (not really CRV) as a form of personal growth and therapy and I'm really impressed with what she's got to say so far. I don't know that all this has been done completely blind or under the strict CRV controls, but that doesn't mean that it isn't insightful or useful for what she's doing with it.

****

Regarding finding RV data in the soup of alternate realities, timelines, probable futures and pasts, etc. etc. :

Now, regarding all the "alternate" data (realities, timelines, etc.), I've experienced far too many alternate realities, timelines, and even personas, to dismiss that as some kind of cosmic wackiness. (Although I assure you, the experiences, especially if they happen while "this" time/reality/persona stays fully conscious, is pretty mind bending and can probably cause some wackiness! <g>) If Brown is a little loony for believing this stuff, I am too. This happens to be something I agree with him on. (It's nice to finally find myself agreeing with him on something. It's funny how the farther he moves away from what Dames taught him (or in most cases, didn't) and the more he moves into his own innovations, the more I tend to agree with him on things and respect his insights. Though I think he could have saved some re-inventing time if he'd trained with somebody different.)

Tasking, either initial or consciously during the session, could be used to narrow in on these issues as well. But I think it's worth recognizing that when it comes to "alternate probabilities," there is not really such a thing as "right" data except as how you define it; there is only such a thing as "the data I prefer to obtain." The data you "want" would (for example) be what is going to match what the police officer you give your data to will find to be true. Whether or not that is the same data, objectively, that you would get viewing any other "probability" is unknown. (So in effect, you are not actually tasking yourself the data "as it was" or even "as it is," but "as it will be.")

Again (as in a former post to the Viewer group), this goes somewhat outside CRV and more into philosophy, since as far as I know, "alternate realities" are not proven in any way, and are still merely "theoretical physics" in science as we know it. CRV is only interested in facts and is pretty straightforward; doesn't include quite so much "cosmic theory" as SRV apparently does. It doesn't deal with alternate realities in the structure, however, the structure is up to the person using it; tasking is always a custom job, and it's long recognized that it can be quite creative.

If creative tasking (as I call it) helps a certain individual narrow in on facts better than they do without it, then why not use it? Sounds good to me.

PJ


Hi PJ

Well you managed to remind me of another concept that I am unclear on. (Now that protocols & methodologies have been wrung out.)

Structure..... is that a subset of method?

Someone else asked about stages. Those seem to differ from group to group.

I also wonder how long your RV sessions last. The ones I tried on Lyn's targets all seemed to be over within 2 or 3 minutes. The best "hits" cam e within the first few seconds. Everything after that was straining and whatever felt like a possible hit was almost always a miss.

Rich


"Regarding Dr. Brown's decision that The Farsight Institute would add a phrase to all their tasking, that being "OMIT TASKER ENFORCED PERCEPTUALS" :

PJ, thanks for your detailed comments on this issue. I'd be curious how Lyn deals with the "Tasker's Cat" -- what kind of instructions he utilizes.

I'd like to just respond to the most direct issue raised -- Brown's specific phrasing, "Omit Taker Enforced Perceptuals."

First, the word "enforced" is not an emotionally neutral word. Even when this "enforcement" is being nulled and voided by this instruction, the presence of the word is likely to create emotional inner "dialogue." This response might be subtle and not easily recognized, and the exact personality structure of the viewer would indicate exactly how big an issue this might be, and how much "processing" would occur. but I do feel that it might negatively impact the success of the session. (The best analogy I can think of is when I ask my computer to "print in the background" and then I open another application. The entire process is very slowed -- noticably so, on a less highpowered system.)

In searching for a less loaded term than "enforced," the best I could find was the term "specified."

Another issue is the use of the term "perceptuals." I'm not sure how the mind processes any of this. However, I see two potential problems:

a) It's my understanding that much of this communication, and perhaps *all* communication, occurs in a format termed "thought balls." I remember the channeled entity Seth talking about the idea that most of our communication with each other happens via telepathy. Although we've convinced ourselves that the overt language carries the entire meaning, if left to that communication alone, we would be almost totally clueless. (Seth didn't use the term "clueless" that was long after his time -- as we create time to exist. <g>)

If this is true, it's possible that some of the "tasker perceptuals" might include non-overt elements that actually flesh out the communication and direction and if we were to successfully strip them away, we might be left in a classic Sethian clueless state. It's possible, for example, that a police officer tasking our RV tasker might have absorbed some clues in a case that have not risen to full conscious awareness. But these may be passed on to our RV tasker and in turn passed on to the viewer. These clues may form a subtle context for the investigation and may shade the meaning of the overt tasking in such a way as to greatly enhance the tasking and outcome of the session(s).

b) Which raises another issue. The instruction is a little bit ambiguous. Do we mean "The Tasker's Perceptuals" (that which is perceived or projected by the tasker herself)? Or do we mean "The Viewer's Perceptuals" which were "enforced" by intention by the Tasker? These are two very different meanings and it is not clear. Common Wisdom in the psychology field has it that the subconscious is extremely literal and so it too may be confused by this ambiguity.

Also, what if disruptive tasker input is not perceived as being in the form of "perceptuals." It seems to me that the most common disruptive tasker input would be in the form of emotion-based sensitivities to the outcome of the viewing. The tasker doesn't want data that doesn't fit their world view, or that doesn't somehow lead to a particular desired outcome. This intention might very well take other forms than "perceptuals."

What do all of you think about this?

Skye


Hi Rich,

<<Structure..... is that a subset of method?

Structure means pretty much what it means in a regular sense. It is simply an organized, pre-designed format for doing something in. "Method" might include the overall process involved in any given type of RV; "structure" would usually be said when someone is referring to the nitty-gritty details of how it's done. Methods, technically, one could be better at or worse than another person. But when you hear the comments about "staying in structure," it means abiding by the absolute details inherent within that methodology (regardless of how good your results are). If it says you must say this, write that, draw this, and do it in this certain way, that may be part of the overall methodologies, but it is very specifically the _structure_ of that methodology. Am I making sense?

Good question, by the way. I forget how confusing this kind of thing must be to people new to the terminology. You all but need to be good at RV to figure out what the heck RVrs are talking about sometimes. :-)

<<Someone else asked about stages. Those seem to differ from group to group.

Well, I haven't worked with TRV or SRV so I don't really know their methods. I do know from talking with people who have that most (TRV in particular) are highly similar to CRV; terminology differs more than method, usually; but the concepts or understanding about it, and why it's done a certain way etc., seem to be... well, either lacking in TRV, or just different. ARV and ERV don't to my knowledge have very specific stages (however some parts of CRV stages can be applied toward those as well).

There are six formal stages (sometimes called phases) in CRV. 1-3 are considered beginning, "basic," 4 is intermediate, and 5-6 are advanced. There's about... I'd say a couple dozen specific exercises (some not CRV, but, like the vocab exercises, very useful for it), and there are other things that are sometimes gone over either during or after the regular stages. (There are other... 'talents' that many CRVrs know methods for approaching, that aren't necessarily part of the formal structure of RV itself, and ways of "dealing with" the data and the experience of the stages themselves, so there's more instruction than the mere how-to of the active session.)

<<I also wonder how long your RV sessions last.

Well, it's up to the Viewer, but I'd guess that more than 90 minutes would be difficult; less than 30 probably wouldn't accomplish much. Might depend on your type of RV, too (e.g., ARV is probably much less time, ERV may be more). We are assuming here that the person is ready to View at the beginning of said session time. Keep in mind that it really depends on your target contact and what you need to find. If you need to get into advanced phases of target contact for your answers, it's going to take longer than if your session is a more casual session, or practice or training, where you can probably go to stage 4, collect some data, and stop. If you're really working on a case or something, you're going to spend a lot longer in target contact trying to find your answers, particularly in the conceptual areas, than you are trying to describe a simple picture off a web site, where you wouldn't have feedback for that anyway. Also, some "types" of targets (e.g., events) may take longer than static targets (e.g., an object), just because there is more overall data involved in the linear process and multiple perspectives or items in the former, and so tackling each part of it and recording it may take longer.

<<The ones I tried on Lyn's targets all seemed to be over within 2 or 3 minutes. The best "hits" came within the first few seconds. Everything after that was straining and whatever felt like a possible hit was almost always a miss.

The feet-first, first stage of RV demonstrates well that the target data is known to your mind and that you can pretty immediately express it in _some form;_ then you spend the next 2-3 phases figuring out what the heck the form you expressed it in really means, in detail. :-) If you remember those scantron tests in high school, they used to tell us that when you're not sure, your "first impression" about the correct multiple choice answer was usually correct, and the more you considered it, the less chance you'd get it right. Part of CRV is learning to trust that immediate data that your subconscious gives you and then build on that to develop your perception of the target.

I should point out that it's likely more common for people to lose target contact in early phases than later phases, particularly when one is not always in very close or highly kinesthetic contact until about phase 3 (when you start drawing) anyway. (Training of some kind really does improve a lot of that.) Hang in there.

PJ


Hiya Vickie!

<<I was wondering if someone could clarify the different "stages" of CRV work such as what is involved in a Stage 1, 2, 3, etc.

Well, briefly, the first three phases (stages -- different words for the same thing) are sort of summed as follows:

Phase/Stage 1 : The Viewer makes "first contact" with the "gestalt" of the target. This means the overall impression (e.g., "nature outdoors" or "mountain" might be a gestalt).

Phase/Stage 2: The Viewer continues getting better target contact by recording sensory impressions of any kind, basic descriptives such as color and impressions (e.g., red, big, etc.).

Phase/Stage 3: The slang impression of this phase is that it's actually the first area where someone is really "remote viewing" vs. just 'picking up little impressions." One tends to have shifted into a much more high-sense contact with the target, and the Viewer begins sketching basic shapes and spacial relationships.

You determine the phase by the type of data you are getting and your degree of contact (and some specific markers built into the structure of CRV). So for instance, it isn't like you do 12 minutes of {xyz} and then youre in Stage 3; rather, "when you get there, you'll know it."

Hopefully Paul or Lyn will comment on it if it's incomplete or incorrect.

PJ


END ARCHIVE 09
APRIL 26 1997 TO MAY 03 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.