firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 011
.


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 eleventh archive.


MAY 03 1997 TO MAY 19 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 11

Hello to all!

My name is Paul. I am finding all of the information here valuable and instructive. I am not formally trained. I have read almost all the books which have been mentioned on this site and others concering RV & CRV along with many hours reading the information on these sites to learn as much as possible ( I always learn more with my mouth and keyboard shut and my ears opened). I am looking for ny suggestions to solving a problem. I had very good success with my first three targets. Alomost to good. My discriptives on color, shapes and objects ran about 75%. Since then It's as though a dark veil has been pulled over my minds eye. Only weak information if any gets by the haze. I know formal training would help, but it's ot in the budget. I seem to have almost become addicted to the subject and activity of RV/CRV. Maybe thats my problem. Don't know! Any and all help greatly appreciated! Thanks! Good Luck To All!

Paul


All--

Around 22 April I responded to a posting about whether a signal of some unidentified sort but similar to electro-magnetism might account for various sorts of ESP (but especially telepathy). Citing the noted psychologist, parapsychologist, and dualist John Beloff, I observed that any signal in the standard sense couldn't account for ESP phenomena, since some form of coding understandable to both sender and receiver would be required to make signal transfer work (I'm explaining all this because it's been awhile since the exchange). Vic Simon responded privately to me with the following, which I thought was interesting, and which he agreed to let me post:

>>"Re: Beloff. What if the coding "keys" <<<are>>> universal? An engraving on all humans, and most likely all beings in the cosmos, regardless of language, culture, or experience. A cosmological universal language. I know it exists, how could it be otherwise? What the nature of and how the field exists, are all models, but it does exist. I too am drawn to Rupert's morphic models. Sheldrake's two books are on my top 200 unread list! " <<

(I had suggested something similar to Sheldrake's morphic resonance as an alternative solution to a signal.)

This is how Beloff frames it: "But how could a meaning, as such, be communicated physically unless there were some agreed code between the parties involved? To suppose that we might be born knowing how telepathic messages are encoded is as nonsensical as to suppose that we might be born with a knowledge of the English language. It would therefore clearly have to be something that was learned, but how and when could this learning take place?" (from "Could There Be a Physical Explanation for Psi?" --available at http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/~dualism/papers)

What I believe Beloff is trying to say here is that, though we think both in concepts and language, both words and conceptualizing are learned here in physical existence during childhood. What we understand is very much a function of what we learn and experience from birth on; and since we make ourselves understood through things we ourselves have come to understand, we cannot communicate in ways we have not yet learned. Just try talking to an Arab if you know no Arabic and he/she knows no English.

If there is no pre-arranged way of coding and encoding a signal, it is impossible to communicate using it, just like trying to communciate verbally with someone who speaks a different language is impossible. Beloff uses "physically" here, but the principle applies no matter what the fundamental nature of a given signal (with quantum mechanics, who knows if "physical" is a relevant concept anyway...). [Of course, many will want to argue all kinds of theories about pre-knowing these things, such as reincarnation or some other sort of pre-existence, but the fact that we don't typically REMEMBER such experiences--yes, I hear those shouts of past-life regression and all that, but I think there are alternative explanations--drastically limits our ability to appeal to such things for proof.]

However, it may be possible that concepts are "inductively" transfered, in an analogous to inducing an electric current in a wire using an external electromagnetic field. [Let me point out, by the way, that I understand "signal" and "field" to be different from each other in fundamental respects.] Even if we learn concepts here after our births, we all seem to understand these concepts regardless of language. I may have the same notion of a low-hung, brown, short-hair dog when I have the image of dachshund as would my Arab friend were he to have the same concept, despite any alternative Arabic term for it. Thus if through something like a morphic field my concept of dachshund could be induced similarly in an Arab's mind, he would understand it just as well. So, after all that, I still argue against signal, and for something else instead, resembling some sort of field effect, such as morphic resonance.

And this is where remote viewing comes in--once seems to perceive the CONCEPTS of things, rather than the words. One applies the words from one's own mental lexicon to the concepts as one proceeds to objectify the data during the course of a CRV session (hence the importance of vocabulary drills). To me, this much more strongly supports the notion of an inductive field rather than a signal per se (my students are out there spluttering "But what about Ingo's 'signal line' model?" Don't forget, I told you it's a useful model to provide a context or a metaphor within which to learn remote viewing; HOW the information is "encoded/decoded," if indeed we can even speak in those terms, is still very much undetermined).

Perhaps I'm getting too carried away with this discussion. But it seemed important at the time <G>!

Paul Smith

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


I'm obviously not as well read nor as CRV literate as Paul and/or Vic, but I have a strong belief that pursuit relative to signal line transmission or coding (somewhat analogous to electronic signalling) is inaccurate and unfruitful.

ELF, EEG, etc measurements fail to reveal distance transfer signalling. In addition, CRV for me brings conceptuals, as Paul said, that I then have to work hard to replicate with descriptors. Also, CRV has no time nor distance limits (session results proven). This means speed of light is also not an issue.

The ONLY way I perceive the 'How it works' is...........

Another DIMENSION that has NO TIME/SPATIAL limits.

If you can just accept that argument for a moment and analyze what that entails, you would see that what is inside the skull/brain region of any one of us would also be in all of us of all times AT all times. This is all CONCIOUS THOUGHT just waiting to be 'tasked/targeted/perceived.

The brain transmits and receives, per evidentiary PSI functioning results with NO language coding nor wavelength emanation. This, I believe is because no transmit power nor signal amplification nor language descriptors are needed.

Oh well, just another kooky voice on the net. BUT - I AM a dedicated CRVer!

David


(Vic)>>A cosmological universal language.

Well... this is great theory, but I'm afraid my foray into it is going to completely remove it from CRV and stick it WAY in the outfield of bizarre esotericism. Heck. Well, maybe that's where it originates, so its unavoidable. This is a little odd so if it makes you more comfortable, consider it just my own psychology talking to me in its own creative symbologies...

There does seem to be a universal language. When I first encountered it in dream states (and then awake states), I thought 'somebody' was trying to 'teach me some kind of math or geometry.' I later described this to a number of experienced, well-studied friends in the more ... metaphysical areas, who said with no surprise that it was referred to as "the angelic language" (though what it really is, who knows). They described it as I did. I was amazed that it wasn't just some unique personal symbology.

I went on to have some very neat personal experiences that demonstrated that this 'language' seems to... well, it works. Suffice to say that everything from space navigation to healing to dowsing has been presented to me encoded in this; it's such a "knowing" experience when operating with it, it's difficult to describe.

I encountered it (I'm serious) during a CRV session (just one... I haven't done very many). I immediately recognized the "feel" of it. (It goes without saying that had I not been instructed in it prior to CRV, I would not have known that's what I was experiencing.) So that's why I feel this may actually relate to what you guys are talking about. I didn't get this until I had finally passed just beyond the sense of "wait... I think I sense something over there, and this here, shaped like this..." and just past that point where suddenly I could "feel" the site "in 3-D" as I call it, was where that kicked in. It hadn't actually occurred to me that it was related, but there was no doubt once I was there.

It feels like ... well, like I AM all things, and I can feel the ISness of them and the relationship(s) between them because they are all actually inside of me and composed of me. I can feel "where and how" things are because each thing can be felt clearly, and the path between them is itself a geometry, like an astronomical relationship or something. I know, I've just wandered off the deep end into something closest to theosophy or occult here, but that's pretty much how it feels. In CRV, it wasn't nearly as literal as many of my personal experiences... but then, I'm a beginner at CRV, and I had just got to phase 3, so maybe that's why.

But to call it a language is to seriously underexplain it. Language is a representation of concept. This IS the concept. The only problem is, words pale beside it. Each communication in this other form is so "absolute" that words are at best an "approximate and somewhat distant translation." Words seem almost abstract sometimes compared to it and in some cases simply don't exist to cover the infinite things that can be covered in the other communication.

Back around early '94 I guess, I nicknamed it "Geometric Conceptual Linguistics."

Since I have already bored you this far :-), I'm going to copy in what I wrote in my journal of that time where I tried to explain this language...

I'm not saying this is "the" answer -- or any answer. But since you guys got into the "universal language" bit, I thought I would relate it.

Sorry for the general sense of religion/spirit/metaphysics attached. What can be done.

PJ


David,

Ref your 16 Apr letter "{vwr}", I intuitively agreed with your "fourth dimensional" model. I agree with you and believe that a "collective consciousness" exists and can be accessed potentially by all via "psi/RV/CRV." The how and where of why it exists, I am still searching for like you. My comment to Paul was only that if you believe in the existence of a universal "consciousness" then the individual translation problems (coding keys) must somehow take care of themselves. That's why Sheldrake's work was intriguing.

The scientific models as to how "consciousness" works are still evolving. (i.e.-noetics) Whether or not it can be detected and/or measured by our current scientific models remains to be seen. Models are only effective in a world of agreement.

David, I am drawn to the work of Fred Alan Wolf the mystic/scientist. As one who is interdisciplined in both quantum physics and noetics, perhaps his books have some insights for the "how" of why CRV works.

One quote from the June "New Age Journal" on Wolf (p.85):

"Wolf was stunned to realize that Suares's conception of consciousness as waves that oscillate between spirit and matter dovetailed perfectly with his views of quantum physics."

David, I have only questions to the how of why it works. But I think we all know it does work, that's why we're having this exchange.

Thanks for the help on my journey!

Blessings'

vic


PJ,

Mark here. I just wanted to write a response to your addressing of a recent discussion about "cosmological universal language" (I believe that it was it was referred to, my memory is not the same since I have started viewing). Anyway, although my present employment is Medical Transcription/Reiki/Hypnotherapy my traditional college years were spent studying Romance Languages and linguistics in general. I really liked your response about concept versus language. I think that is why I did so well in language study...basically because I was able to dowse or "feel" the concepts that the language was supposed to represent possibly from whatever collective consciousness there is or whatever it is called. Anyway my point is simply that since I have started trying to view I have also encountered this "geometric" thing, especially in relation to emotion. I have done "readings" for friends before and I can sense the usual stuff like a deep sense of sadness or confusion or whatever at the time but it is not like I actually start to feel sad inside and then relate that it is coming from the other person. It is like I sense the "shape and being" of sadness and all that it entails, totally apart from me and yet totally knowing it to be me at the same time. Speaking of language, I don't know how to relate the experience verbally, I just realized that in my attempting to....maybe you get the idea of what I am trying to say. Anyway, I think that is where the problem comes in with people just starting to do CRV. We just don't know exactly where to put the "controls" in and once they are there simply find our language inadequate to represent the concepts at the rate at which they "pop up" in our consciousness. Am I making any sense? Well, needless to say, thank you for sharing your journal entry it has really started a clarification process for me. It seems to be so importance for us as a society to "label" everything that now that I am trying to resist labeling it is quite a challenge.

Thanks again,

Mark


David--

I didn't mention where I thought the "morphic resonance" field comes from!

At 08:41 AM 5/5/97 -0700, you wrote:

>Another DIMENSION that has NO TIME/SPATIAL limits.

...and this would be it. Back when I was with the program at Ft. Meade, I read a number of papers relevant to consciousness and dimensionality. One was the classic "Flatland," about life in a two-dimensional world (among other things). Another was "Dimensionality and States of Consciousness," which explained (among other things) that we actually live in a 3.1 dimensional world--we have to live slightly into the fourth dimension, or we would be unable to percieve three dimensional objects as such. Another was "Some Thoughts On Higher Dimensional Realms," which (among other things) gave a very convincing account as to how religious visions experienced by (Mormon Church founder) Joseph Smith, as well as other religious figures, could be explained through the appearance of 4-dimensional aspects of multi-dimensional beings. Now THAT was a wild one!

At any rate, I think the multi-dimensional model is quite an interesting and highly explanatory one that provides a quite plausible starting point for potential explanations of CRV, as well as other "psychic" and "spiritual" phenomena. One thing, however, where I differ with you. It would not be necessary for the explanation that these other dimensions exist with no time or spatial limits. The only requirement would be that if they possess such limits, they intersect with our dimension in ways that allow for the ways the phenomena in which we are interested behave.

>If you can just accept that argument for a moment and analyze what that entails, you would see that what is inside the skull/brain region of any one of us would also be in all of us of all times AT all times.

Or, at any rate, could be accesible in more than just a physical sense. This is also an idea touched on by Sheldrake--the cosmic unconscious, and how at some lower level we fuse with the consciousness of all. Interesting thought.

>The brain transmits and receives, per evidentiary PSI functioning results with NO language coding nor wavelength emanation. This, I believe is because no transmit power nor signal amplification nor language descriptors are needed.

Actually, in accordance with our model here, it almost makes no sense to speak in terms of transmitting and receiving--it's something else entirely.

>Oh well, just another kooky voice on the net. BUT - I AM a dedicated CRVer!

All of us are at least mildly "kooky" by the standards of Western Civilization--otherwise we wouldn't be here!

Thanks for your comments.

Paul Smith

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


Hi Viewers,

After all the talks we've had over the last month about CRV sessions and the potential problems and things to avoid, I thought I'd post a couple of my early "problem" sessions where, in the process of completely screwing it up, I learned something. This is usually the way I learn anything. :-)

I think I'll start with the "fixation" mistake, e.g., 'doorknobbing' in Lyn's terms. This was a session that I did while I was in training, but at night in my motel. (The Motel on the Moon, they called this utterly charmless little place near Lyn in Maryland.) I'd been given a number of targets in folders and chose one for a solo session. I was nervous because I hadn't worked without a monitor and felt a little insecure.

The first phase went amazingly well, and I nailed down right off, like within about 60 seconds if that, that the target was 'a singular, central focus, an organic, in motion, in or surrounded by one major gestalt...' I couldn't place the gestalt for sure. (It turned out to be water.) (I think that's unusual, btw. I was having a good session.)

And I began getting descriptors. Bright, shiny, reflective, etc. (all describing the water). And then suddenly I had this sense of the most DELIGHTFUL thing. It was a whole bunch of things. They were incredibly sparkly, shimmery, quivery, they had an almost tactile feel of longish soft-spiky, they were so neat, and I just went off. I described them in detail. I stated that they were similar but not identical, they were related "like family," and so on.

So eventually I felt like I'd done what I could. I had this happy little feeling in my heart, was suddenly in a good mood thanks to the session. And I look at the target.

The target was a hippopotamus, rising out of the water on a sunny morning, splashing everywhere.

What _I_ described AD NAUSEUM was his WHISKERS!

The moment I saw the feedback, I understood why. They were SO cute. My god, they were just adorable. I never knew hippos HAD whiskers. But they were all sparkly with the water and sun and I laughed just seeing them.

As far as getting data goes, I did get most of the stage/phase 1 data, I did get most of the descriptors available for stage 2 excepting one or two for the hippo itself, and I got more detail than I bet anybody has ever described about hippopotamus whiskers. ;-)

But as far as the session goes, it was a failure. Because I did not describe the hippo much (the target); I had far too much focus on an irrelevant detail of the target; I missed the third major gestalt at the site (water, the first two being a biological [animal] and motion); and an analyst would have pretty much been helpless with what I provided and how.

And, because of my distraction onto the whiskers, I failed to continue target contact to the phase/stage where I could have done some drawing.

Worse, after all the session data, my conclusion (which crept into my data, alas) was that those wonderful things might be a group of flowers or something.

"Live and learn." :-)

PJ


>The target was a hippopotamus, rising out of the water on a sunny morning, splashing everywhere. What _I_ described AD NAUSEUM was his WHISKERS! The moment I saw the feedback, I understood why. They were SO cute. My god, they were just adorable. I never knew hippos HAD whiskers. But they were all sparkly with the water and sun and I laughed just seeing them. As far as getting data goes, I did get most of the stage/phase 1 data, I did get most of the descriptors available for stage 2 excepting one or two for the hippo itself, and I got more detail than I bet anybody has ever described about hippopotamus whiskers. ;-) But as far as the session goes, it was a failure.

AAAAARGHHHHHH!!!!!

I remember that session, and I would like to explain to everyone who has read this that that session was a tremendous success! More than that, I would like to explain to everyone WHY it was a tremendous success:

1. You learned something. As a student, everyone wants to see their summaries match the target - that is their idea of success. As a teacher, I can tell you that that is probably the worst measure of success you can have. I personally don't care if, within the scope of any session, you ever even get anything about the target === as long as you learn something from the session. That is my measure of a successful session. If you nail the target so clearly and with such detail that even the amazing Randi would shy away from it, and don't learn anything in the process, then I would say it was time that could have been spent doing something else. Even if you only learn the extent to which your abilities can take you, learn that. If you do, it is impossible, in my estimation, to call it a failure.

2. You unmistakably accessed the target. How could anyone call that a failure?

3. You had a session which not only accessed the target, and taught you something, but also impressed so cleanly and indellibly on you that you can do this that it is still vivid in your mind.

Deny it all you want... that was a great session.

>............. Because I did not describe the hippo much (the target); I had far too much focus on an irrelevant detail of the target;

Irrelevant to an analyst or the tasker, maybe, but any time someone "doorknobs", there is a reason for it. Whether it is a deep psychological reason, or just the marvel of seeing the world in a way they have never experienced it before, the detail on which a viewer doorknobs is never irrelevant to that viewer. And after all... the viewer >>>IS<<< in charge of the session.

>... I missed the third major gestalt at the site (water, the first two being a biological [animal] and motion);

Only two miracles out of three? Well, I mean, give it up!

>......... and an analyst would have pretty much been helpless with what I provided and how.

Not so. CRV, in its original conception, was never meant to be a single-person, stand-alone activity. Any time you have a group large enough to have an analyst, you have input from several viewers. One may gain a lot of detail on one part of a site, while another gains detail on another part. The analyst is trained to take these "doorknobs" and make houses of them. That's why the job position exists and requires a well-trained person to perform it.

>And, because of my distraction onto the whiskers, I failed to continue target contact to the phase/stage where I could have done some drawing.

Actually, there are a lot of targets which can be adequately described within the scope of phases I and II. I pick targets like that for beginning students, and try to slowly work them up to Phase III targets as they progress. The hippo could have been taken to phase III, but your Phase II description was sufficient. After all, that was only your second day of training. While I had to cover Phase III work and structure in the class, because of the limited class time, I would not have given you something that demanded work you wouldn't be doing (or actually, capable of doing) for another few months.

>Worse, after all the session data, my conclusion (which crept into my data, alas) was that those wonderful things might be a group of flowers or something.

This was not the doorknobbing mistake. That was your NAG giving you a STRAY CAT, pure and simple. It happens to the best of us, all the time. Don't sweat it.

>"Live and learn." :-) PJ

I decided to address this message not because of your feelings toward that session, but because those feelings are so common to all students. Because it is the tendancy of every student to want to "do it all" within the first few days. Back in the unit, we generally took a month or more in stage 1, having to get the right gestalt the first time every time, 25 times in a row, before we could even think about progressing to the classroom introduction to stage 2 work. People want this training to be something which can be popped into a computer, tape player, or VCR, and learned within the space of an hour. When that doesn't happen, they feel that >>>they<<< have failed.

If a person is 30 years old, CRV training has to undo 30 years of thinking patterns in order to make the change to a larger universe. That can't happen in a weekend, or the span of a tape or video. It just can't. And when it doesn't happen, the students automatically feel that it is they who have somehow proven deficient. It isn't. I have been watching the tapes and programs coming out and courses being offered which advertise that they can teach CRV in a week or so, and I feel the hurt which is being done to the students who get sold on such hype, only to then blame themselves when it doesn't work. It just isn't right. People should be told up front and honestly that it takes time and work and effort. They need to be told up front that there are things they must learn, and that learning is slow, and that there are a lot of things in life which can only be learned by success, and a lot which can only be learned by failure, and that you haven't learned it all until you have learned from both.

OK. OK. I'll get off my soap box. The fact is that in that Hippo session, you did >>on the second day of your training<< a quality of work that had taken the people before you months to be capable of doing. You're good at this, whether you like to admit it or not. So suck it up and quitcherbellyaching! :-]

Actually, I think that this series of revelations on your part is fantastic, and should probably be put in to an archive. I would like to see more people write in their experiences, so everyone can get a feel for the processes and know what to expect as they continue to learn. Good work.

Lyn Buchanan

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


Hi Viewers,

OK, the next session on the "live&learn" list is one I did after returning home from training. I had a few extra targets I hadn't done in class so I was working on those.

(Actually, ALL my sessions fit into this category. <g>)

I did get from phase/stage 1 that the gestalt was a singular central manmade, a structure, I felt. As the session went on I felt I was doing decently, and was really impressed with how clearly I got that it there was wood, and beams, painted white. I felt there was some kind of long horizontal beam that was 'at the top' of one portion of the structure, the part facing me, but not at the top of the structure itself. I sensed that the structure was pretty much all wood, all white, and that it went up to a point on the top. I also got other sensories like, "calm, peace, serenity, strength." I got that it was outside, the sky was blue, and the air was cold. There were these multiple tall thin vertical things around which I felt were wood like trees.

Then I had my first STRAY CAT attack, and it was a big one. My mind decided, for reasons beyond me, that the target simply had to be a boat. It fit in the horizontal wood beam as the edge of the boat. The tall point was a sail. It was blue sky but cold because it was on the water. And so on. I decided the calm, peace, serenity and strength were of course calm water. As for what I had thought were trees, this didn't really mesh with a boat <g>, so then my mind decided HEY, those must be those wooden posts that are sometimes sticking up all around a shoreline, like pier posts or docking / wharf posts, they're kind of like anchored telephone poles. This fit in perfectly. It HAD to be a boat.

So I continued my session. I just hadn't realized until then that the cold clear air was kind of salty. And the wooden structure, I didn't notice until then that the top of it was soft, canvassy -- like a sail. And so on. After awhile though I just didn't feel any target contact at all. I had such an overriding impression of boat, which I realized was analytical and not target probably, that eventually I ended the session by stomping off.

Later I came back to look at the feedback.

It was a little white wooden church, with a wooden fence/railing around it, a pointy steeple at the top, surrounded by tall thin trees, on a clear blue day.

It WASN'T A BOAT.

I was really ticked off about that.

Going back through my session data, I realized that everything up to the point where I'd decided it was a boat was either correct, or could not be determined (e.g., the emotion-conceptuals mentioned are surely subjective; the cold air couldn't be measured; etc.). From that point on, everything was wrong. Not only that, it just got wrongER. By the time I realized I'd completely lost target contact, it was pretty much just a creative writing project.

So, that's an example of what allowing even the smallest analysis of your data can do to you. Had I been in structure, I'd have dealt with that analysis. But I fell out of structure -- I kept it inside, thinking, "...I'll wait and see, I think it is, let's see if it is." (buzzer sound - sorry, wrong answer!)

And it all began with a SMALL thing -- the point reminding me of a sail. Had I nipped that in the bud, I'd probably have been okay. Because I allowed myself to ignore it and keep it percolating, my conscious mind got busy making all the other data fit into the pattern. When it had the pattern complete, it handed it to me like "ta-da! here it is!" (probably very proud of itself <g>) and I bought it.

"Live and learn." :-)

PJ


Hello all,

I'm Yvete, and I've been lurking since day one of the list -- 'bout time I come out and introduce myself...

I attended Lyn's basic course in January, and can attest to the fact that CRV is not a fast and easy learning process. I have practiced on targets almost daily, and I start my day with the ideogram exercise. I no longer think about doing/not doing the recommended exercises - they became part of my daily routine. Despite my commitment, progress comes in itsy bitsy increments. It's important to not get discouraged!

And now my 'live and learn' experience...

A while back I had a 'doorknobbing' session. At the time I had a monitor (who is now in the process of relocating to another State), and the target was a pair of mountain boots on a snowy ground. I came into session "full blast," as he later described it. The first 10-12 perceptions came fast and were right on. Then... I discovered the laces. I was in awe with them!... I described the fibers that composed the material to the minute detail. At one point, I think I moved "inside" the lace, and I proceeded to describe this crowd of huge tubular shapes and how they interlocked. My monitor tried to get me out and away from the darn laces, but I wouldn't!... The whole thing went on for a while, until he put me out of my misery and suggested I had enough information.

Looking back, I learned one thing. Out of the blue, in the middle of phase 2, I drew several up/down straight lines -- like steps. My monitor asked me if that was an ideogram, but it wasn't a known one to me. I said that I had the urge to draw that. I immediately thought that the target was probably a structure that had stairs, thus the drawing of the steps. I declared it as a 'stray cat' and continued. After I saw the feedback, I couldn't figure out the drawing so I filed the target results with the others. Some 60 days later I had a similar target: a tennis shoe. Guess what happened? I drew the steps again. My initial conclusion, which is premature after only two targets to back it, is that the steps are my ideogram for footwear.

Don't disregard the apparently "not-so-good" sessions -- they may hide important information!

Yvete


Lyn Buchanan commenting on PJ's hippo session:

>>AAAAARGHHHHHH!!!!!

>>I remember that session, and I would like to explain to everyone who has >>read this that that session was a tremendous success! More than that, I >>would like to explain to everyone WHY it was a tremendous success:

Thanks for a great post, Lyn. I think we should all read this again and again until your excellent points finally sink in and take root.

Why do we have to be so hard on ourselves?

PJ, thanks for sharing these sessions with us. And congratulations, dammit!

- Mike ;)


At 06:59 PM 5/6/97 -0700, PJ wrote:

From that point on, everything was wrong. Not only that, it just got wrongER. By the time I realized I'd completely lost target contact, it was pretty much just a creative writing project.

Congratulations. You adopted yourself a pet SCWERL. (pronounced "squirrel" and meaning, STRAY CAT, Wrecking Everything, Running Loose.)

Had I been in structure, I'd have dealt with that analysis. But I fell out of structure -- I kept it inside, thinking, "...I'll wait and see, I think it is, let's see if it is." (buzzer sound - sorry, wrong answer!) And it all began with a SMALL thing -- the point reminding me of a sail. Had I nipped that in the bud, I'd probably have been okay. Because I allowed myself to ignore it and keep it percolating, my conscious mind got busy making all the other data fit into the pattern. When it had the pattern complete, it handed it to me like "ta-da! here it is!" (probably very proud of itself <g>) and I bought it. "Live and learn." :-)

It is at that point that the SCWERL takes over. After that, about the only thing you can do is to just write "Session End" and walk away from it. Some SCWERLs are so forceful that they can't even be nipped in the bud early on, but the greatest majority of them can. That is one of the main reasons for the structure, and one of the main problems faced by those methods which don't have such a structure.

Many, if not most, natural psychics fall prey to this problem. You can watch and listen to them and pretty soon perceive a pattern: they get a very valid perception and then feel compelled to make sense of it. They "build castles" until that information runs its course, then return to the target, get another valid impression, and start all over again.

That is why I teach police departments who use natural psychics to work with them using the following pattern:

A "well-formed task for a psychic" (and to CRVers, too) consists first of a task for the subconscious mind to perform, followed immediately by a task for the conscious mind (in order to keep it out of the subconscious mind's way). Example:

"Move to 2:30 tomorrow....." That's something you can't do consciously. "...and describe the site. " That's something you can do consciously.

Ingo puts it into the passive, but uses the same pattern:

"Move to 2:30 tomorrow. The site should be visible."

I tell the police to ask their first question in that manner: "Go to the event and tell me what you see happening." The psychic will get the impression and report: "I see some commotion. Lots of noise. You know, it's..." At that point, the castle building starts, and the police investigator should interrupt with some new task, such as: "Good. Now, move to the person making the commotion. Can you describe that person?" The psychic begins again with a new, valid impression: "Yes. I see a male. This guy is really mean looking..." The castle building has started. The investigator interrupts with another task: "OK, move to the location. Can you describe it?" etc.

In this way, the good impressions are singled out, and the castle building is avoided. It is sort of hard on the psychic, but the information which comes from this process is of a MUCH higher quality than if the psychic is allowed to ramble and build scenarios. As a result, the psychic feels much better at feedback time, because the information proves more useful to the investigation.

Lyn Buchanan

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


MAY 03 1997 TO MAY 19 1997
END ARCHIVE 11

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.