firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 038
.


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 thirty-eighth archive.


October 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 38

>Can I task myself targets of personal interest. >eg. Diane's car crash. > The chamber under the Sphinx.

Dear Mary,

I'm sure that by now (I'm always a few days late on answering) you have received answers which say, "No, you can't give yourself targets, because you will already be too frontloaded."

I beg to differ in advance. There is one way to give yourself targets which a lot of us have used very successfully. However, it is neither quick nor easy. As you know, the most important part of learning CRV is self discipline. Well, here's where that good ol' self discipline comes into play, once again.

1. Sit down and talk with yourself to objectify the fact that you wouldn't be doing this session if you could get the answer another way. Neither logic, all the wishing in the world, nor "gut feeling" has answered your question.

2. Determine which part of the question is the exact unknown which is not answerable by any other means. For example, don't say, "Diane's car crash." Say instead (and here's where the talking to yourself becomes important), "I know the results of the crash. The police have reconstructed what happened in detail. I know that as of the moment Diane became aware there would be a car crash, she was scared and on automatic-bracing mode. What I don't know is what was going through her mind just before that, which made her lose attention and allow the crash to happen. It may or may not have had anything to do with her life at the moment, the news or events of the day, daydreaming, etc. There is absolutely no way to know what she was thinking. So that's the unknown... That's what there is absolutely no other way of finding or figuring out."

3. Once you have determined the total unknown (otherwise unknowable), then you can put that into proper tasking format: "The target is 970707/000001. The target is a topic. Describe the topic." (or in pure Ingoese, "The topic should be perceivable")

4. Now, do the session. Throught the session, your "NAG" (Namer and Guesser) will keep jumping to conclusions of all kind. You must continue to have the self-discipline to say, "No, if it could be figured out, it would have been by now. I can't jump to conclusions."... and keep on keeping the viewing pure and unpolluted by logical deductions, what you wish the answer is, what you fear the answer is, etc. In this type of tasking, you must work doubly hard to remain pure.

5. After working the session, go back over the perceptions you got (it's kind of like watching grass grow) and "re-live" the moments, to see if you allowed emotions, imagination, wishes or fears to influence them. Weed out the ones where you did. Write up the summary from what you have left.

6. Let the summary "get cold" and then read it.

Giving yourself tasking takes a huge amount of self discipline. But it can be done. Just remember - go for the unknown.

Lyn

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


>Damn, I was/am (positive thought here folks) looking forward to being >nosey <G>.

Hi Mary, Liam again. If you notice, I did not say you could not do it. I said I could not do it. At least, I could not do it and put any faith in my results. I know the limits of my ability. (No, I guess I really do not.) If you want to do it, go ahead and do it. Just for the fun of it. I really believe RVing is, and should be, fun. (Excuse me a second Mary, I need to dig a little fox hole here. I can see the Purists loading up their big guns to fire at me.) Remember you will not be getting any feedback so by the pure definition it is not really RV. (If you try RV the crash and you start getting things such as "smell of alcohol, spinning around, lights flashing, head hurts, feeling I am going to die. " You may not be viewing the crash, but may be viewing me on a typical Friday night, before I quit drinking.)

>This is very frustrating and I'm really getting confused here.This sounds >like a Catch 22. I'm sorry if I'm being thick. I truly am. As a newbie, >one never knows if asking a stupid question or not. snip

Mary, quit apologizing. Your questions are excellent. If you have a question, so do a lot of other people.

>You see, I'm reading Nancy's letter. >>For example, when I "looked" at my partner's very sick >>father, there kept being more info, which would pop up at odd times >>later, for a couple of days. I recently did a session on a supposedly >>autistic boy of 5 >Nancy looked at her partners father. Surely, Nancy must have known/chosen >her target. What about assessing, without front loading, the little boy. snip

We do not know if Nancy was blind [to the target] or not. I can only speak for myself. I would rather not have an idea of what I was viewing. Maybe Nancy has a way to control the logical side of her mind. I guess the bottom line is sometimes you do not have a choice. In those situations I am always real skeptical of the information I produce. On the other hand I have nothing against a little front loading (Lyn did an excellent post about one week ago on front loading. If you did not read it, you might want to look it up.) If I am looking for a person I would prefer to have a general idea of that. That way I do not spend the majority of my "on Target Time" describing forests, cities, and other irrevelent data.

>recall another vwr mentioned looking for an item (car keys?) for a >friend. Isn't that targetting personal interests? Also, how can a >professional vwr, working alone, decide whether to take on a client, if >they can't know, without too much front loading, what the client wants. >Doesn't the same Catch 22 apply? snip

Looking for a set of keys is an example of front loading. A little more than I would like to receive, but still, IMO, a can-do project. I would prefer to know I was looking for an object, and leave it at that. A difference here is the possibility of feedback. So you can determine if you were right or not.

The bottom line is to have some fun. Work some fun projects. But spend the majority of your viewing time doing blind targets you can get feedback from. Also do not try and push yourself too fast. This is a skill, it takes most people years to learn.

Enjoy your trip

best wishes

May the Force be with you,

Liam

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


Mary... When Liam sent you that response you were a recipient of guidance from one of the best RV'rs in the business. He is absolutely correct in noting that RV is not an individual single person sport... you have to have a controller / monitor available to you who keeps the data "clean"... Cueing or "hints" turns the art of RV into a 20 questions drill... "Is it the same size as a bread basket?... Is this an object I would find in my home? etc. etc... Again, I cannot state it more firmly... If the viewer is a viewer and is doing this thing we call RV correctly... they need absoutely no prompting, just monitoring... It is not a cheap version of TV or another method of passing GMATS without studying. You can't use it to predict numbers in the lottery (ask around... how many millionaire RV'rs do you know)... and you don't use it as an adjunct to the daily news. Now if a monitor wanted you to look at Princess Diana's death site, he/she may set methods that will take you there, but only if you are not told in advance or even provided little hints ... "Today we will look at something that happened recently which was very tragic and affected the whole world" (let's see now...Mother Teresa / Princess Diana...)... see how hinting works... The honest viewer needs only to be told to go to the right place ... nothing more... no hints, not cues and no preloading and warm and fuzzy feedback... Regardz....Gene...

[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]


>...The honest viewer needs only to be told to go to the right place >... nothing more... no hints, not cues and no preloading and warm and >fuzzy feedback... Regardz....Gene...

I know that "me too's" are not preferred on this page, but I would like to add one, anyway. If I were monitoring for the example of finding the lost keys that Liam used, I would probably ask myself what the real unknown was. Is it the keys? No. No need to describe the keys. What we need is a description of the >>location<< of the keys. I would therefore use the frontloading of, "The target is a location. Describe the location." That is, >>>IF<<< I used any frontloading at all. There would be no difference, tasking-wise, between that and just giving you a bunch of numbers. Again, the purpose of the frontloading is just so you know what type of work you will be doing. It is not to give you any information.

I really liked Gene's example of really poor tasking for the Princess Di death event: >"Today we will look at something that happened recently which was very tragic and affected the whole world"

What a horrible thing that would be to do to a viewer!!! Aside from the fact that it instills all kinds of emotions into the session, it causes the conscious mind to play the 20 questions game, like Gene said. If you were to give frontloading for such a target, you would be much better off to say, "The target is an event. Describe the event."

Lyn

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


>............the intensity of your interest that will >throw you off. The more you are impacted, the less objective you become . > The key here is objectivity.

Lesson to all who would be monitors:

There are two kinds of breaks in CRV which are very important: 1) the AOL (STRAY CAT) break, in which, basically, the viewer's imagination is getting in the way, and 2) the break for emotional attractors and distractors. The rule is that undeclared STRAY CATs will mess up your session, but undeclared emotions will stop it cold.

There is a micromovement which is very dependable: the viewer is working along and suddenly freezes in place. He/she is staring at the paper, pen poised above it but totally unmoving, and absolutely nothing is coming to mind. It is almost a certainty that the monitor can question the viewer (in totally neutral terms) about the material within a half a page previous to that point and find a spot in the session where the viewer had an emotional reaction to something at the site but didn't declare it. Once the emotion is objectified, the session can resume. If it is not, the session can be pushed forward, but will usually just end in chaos and confusion.

OK, I'll take of my teacher's hat, now.

Lyn

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


<< What a horrible thing that would be to do to a viewer!!! Aside from the fact that it instills all kinds of emotions into the session, it causes the conscious mind to play the 20 questions game, like Gene said. If you were to give frontloading for such a target, you would be much better off to say, "The target is an event. Describe the event." >>

Ok.. I agree... But what if you were working for a police dept. and they tasked you with "Locate Person". Wouldn't the tendency be to subconsciously assume that the target was a victim of a crime possibly? Wouldn't that make some AOL? I know that there are methods for sorting it out... But...

I guess it is great to have an idea of what your task is... you know, to narrow it down, but it seems to me that in a situation like that the frontloading would be a potential problem, at least for newbies such as myself. ( Although we newbies would probably not be given a target like that!!))

~Sarah

---------
Moderator's Note: Sarah, (are you posting for Dennis again? <g>) something to consider is that frontloading is not just "a thing." It's not just based on what somebody tells you. It is based on anything, including a situation or way of telling you or a source, that would cue you into information (accurate or not, I guess). Getting tasking from a P.D. is a form of frontloading all by itself, which is why most RVrs work through a group like Lyn's AWP or Gene's small group to do this, because then they don't know the source or details. Getting tasking from certain people or groups is itself frontloading, if they're known to have certain tasking tendencies.

The only way to do decent RV (the real sort) is to have a tasker you can trust, and who generally has a variety of reasons for tasking or types of cases or what have you. For instance, in CRV as it was designed, there is a whole team of people, usually more than one Viewer, etc. Your tasking may not be to 'find the missing person' of a case, even if that WERE the case; it may be to find the person described as NEAR the missing person, by yet another Viewer in a session prior to yours. You just don't know what element something could be. The blinding keeps you from second guessing and AOLing (to the degree possible) by making it a waste of time to even try and guess.

PJ


Liam wrote: > As PJ said, I believe they > incorporated the time right into the tasking and then made it into a > coded coordinate.

Hi Liam,

If the target was the bombing of Pearl Harbor, would it be correct tasking to assign a number,say, 2020A to the present time target, 2020B to the date, and 2020C to the time of the event? After the signal line was established, couldn't the monitor just say move to 2020B, ect.?

Thanks,

Ken


Ken wrote: >If the target was the bombing of Pearl Harbor, would it be correct >tasking to assign a number,say, 2020A to the present time target, 2020B to > the date, and 2020C to the time of the event? After the signal line was >established, couldn't the monitor just say move to 2020B, ect.?

Hi Ken;

Interesting question. This is why I honestly believe that the hardest job in RVing is not viewing but monitoring.

My gut tells me that you can only have one set of coordinates per session. You can aquire the site and then do a movement exercise in time. An ingenious monitor can figger out a way to do this without running too great a chance of AOL. You can assign a different coordinate to the same site in different times, as you suggested, but then IMO you need to work two separate sessions. Movement exercises are not that difficult and are, once again IMHO, the best way to resolve this problem. I have done many movement exercises on a single target. Cueing such as Go back 25 years and report. Now go back 50 years and report. Now go back etc. The same is true of geographical movement exercises. (one way to attack the search problem). Go 10 miles North and report. Go 5 miles southeast and report, go 2 miles etc.

Realisticaly, how often is it going to be necessary to report on a target in present time and in past time during the same session? If you notice, I am a lot like Paul Smith. I would rather not get involved in viewing the future.

This is a good place for me to say thank you to all those who monitored me. The success of the military unit was based on the strength of our monitors, people like Skip and Gene, as it was on the quality of the viewers. Remember, viewers cannot think, monitors must think. That is not entirely true, but I like the way it sounds so I will leave it.

Best wishes

May the Force be with you,

Liam

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


Reference including the tasking time frame into the coordinate... Sorry to be the guy who has to tell you that there really isn't a tooth fairy but there was no time frame included in the coordinates. As a monitor, I usually wrote some numbers down while the Viewer was dropping down into the altered state. They were just six numbers I made up on the spot and nothing else... I am current doing some RV tasking over the computer.... a typical tasking "coordinate" for today would be 97 / 10 / 19 / 001 ... now in case there are no math majors out there... this means in 1997, in October, on the 19th to be more specific, tasking number one was passed to a Viewer. Next time we look at the same target the date and the tasking number will change. It makes my bookkeeping easy. You will notice however there is no secret imbedded code or subtle reference to a hemisphere, future, past or current date. The Viewer, if they trust me as their monitor, needs no other prompting or subtlety. They will ONLY go where they are suppose to go... I know it sounds like magic... which incidentally is my position on why RV works... but believe me it is all a good viewer needs to get on target.... nothing else.... Regards... Gene

[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]


GeneK said: "... the Viewer, if they trust me as their monitor, needs no other prompting or subtlety. They will ONLY go where they are suppose to go...I know it sounds like magic.....which incidentally is my position on why RV works...but believe me it is all a good viewer needs to get on target....nothing else....

I love it, this is so great...! Nothing but magic [aka "intent"]. (I almost used another term, but my Teacher is listening...and I have to be good.) Trouble is, it works, no fuss no muss.

Leveda and I were doing another one of Paul's Advanced "reinforcement" sessions today. She was monitoring, and I'd gotten the basic stuff pretty solidly and was working S4 but then kinda got stuck, not making a lot of headway. I didn't know it but the target was one in which a very spectacular historic event occurred, and the site is more mundane now. [Sorry, can't tell you what it was, one of Paul's favorite targets and he got on me after I spilled the beans about the last one...] Leveda noticed that I'd run out of gas and, following what Paul had taught us, did a simple generic time-movement exercise that went something like this: "Event associated with target should be perceivable." I don't even think she had a very exact notion of the year of the event, it didn't matter. In less than 5 minutes I did a quick flurry of S4s and then declared a strong AOL/S that turned out to be the event itself. So IMO all this fanciness of complicated tasking statements is just window-dressing if the fundamental intent of the tasker or monitor is clear.

So for my money, what GeneK and Liam say about the role of the monitor and their interaction with the viewer should be listened to as the voice of experience that offers the benefit of doing what works. (and yessir sir, this trusting viewer will turn in his next session *real* soon .... :-))>

Cheers,

GeneT


Thanks for the re-inforcement... It cannot be overemphasized that the monitor must avoid the tendency to "help" the viewer by coaxing or cueing them to the right place and right time. Trust has to work both ways and the monitor has to trust the "magic" will always take the viewer to the right place and right time... Gene...

[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]


Gene wrote: >As a >monitor, I usually wrote some numbers down while the Viewer was dropping >down into the altered state. They were just six numbers I made up on the >spot and nothing else

I am stunned, schocked, and darn near amazed. All this time I thought you and Skip had made this great psychic breakthrough on a par with my mother's peanut butter bread pudding. You mean all those carefully encrypted numbers you gave me were nothing more than gibberish. Shame, Shame.

snip > ...I know it sounds like magic.....which > incidentally is my position on why RV works... snip

Congratulations Gene. I thought I was the only one who knew why RV works. I am not surprised that it was another Irishman who figured it out. I bet the scientists would do a lot better at solving the riddle of RV if they just accepted the fact that it is magic and then went from there.

Best wishes

May the Force be with you,

Liam

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

----
Moderator's Note: Do you guys ever read the messages you sent to the list, and notice that they look a little different than the copy you sent? I just wondered, since you've never said anything.... -- PJ


<< Leveda noticed that I'd run out of gas and, following what Paul had taught us, did a simple generic time-movement exercise that went something like this: "Event associated with target should be perceivable.">>

This is a good, non loaded way of directing the viewer. In CRV, we often use this when entering Phase 4. Another solution to this is for the monitor and viewer to have a preexisting agreement that an arbitrary number is to be used when doing a movement exercise. For example, it could be agreed to that if the monitor wants the viewer to move back in time, they will always use 100 years, regardless if the target is 1 hour or 1000 years in the past. In this way, the subconscious is told to move back in time, without the exercise giving the viewer any information about the target. The "intent" to move back in time is enough, and the subconscious will usually adjust to the correct time period. This method can also be used to move a viewer physically towards or away from a target without giving away the size of the target.

Brent and Lisa


>If the target was the bombing of Pearl Harbor, would it be correct >tasking to assign a number,say, 2020A to the present time target, 2020B to > the date, and 2020C to the time of the event? After the signal line was >established, couldn't the monitor just say move to 2020B, ect.?

Haven't seen Liam's response yet, but why not just give 2020 as the coords for Pearl Harbor and then move around in time once you get there? That's what you'd do if you were moving around the city and staying steady in time. Time and space aren't that much different, procedure-wise.

Lyn

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


PJ... I asked Liam and he agrees with me... we claim no pride of authorship on what we write and drop on the list.. things we put on while we are swilling down our third or fourth beer in the evening do seem to be a little clearer the next time we see it... but then again... he and I have already made it known to the list that we believe the whole RV thing is magic so we just wrote it off to the fairies and leprechauns editing our work... is there another explanation for the changes??? Gene...

[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]

-----
Moderator's Note: No. That's it. I'm just a leppa-something. (I used to tell people I was a fairy but they got the wrong idea.) -- PJ


Dear Vic,

I love your description of the Dance. I was thinking actively for several days about how to frame a question about the difference betw CRV and ERV. Thank you for answering my unframed question. I must have thrown the energy into the web and you fished it out and replied. ::::goosebumps:::: (from validation that it works like I knew it did)

I seem to have skipped a step. I've had "access" for some time -- it's what I use in healing work. When I heard about what a big deal was being made of "remote influencing" I shrugged and said, so what, I've been doing it for 9 years.

when you say, "A form of "remote influencing by the targeteer/s?- a sort of "will call" " what I extrapolate from that is, the real remote influencing is done by the Host of the Dance in the form of our native abilities, activating our interest in the Dance in the first place so that we will engage the steps...any thoughts on this? In other words, we are the pawns in a huge picture only a small part of which we can see, and I again refer everyone to the great Theodore Sturgeon book, MORE THAN HUMAN, which is about development of human into universal consciousness.

Love ya all

Nancy A


>It is then that they met other "dancers" who had an infinite variety >of stories of "invitations/paths" to the "Cosmic Dance". (All Psychic >functioning) And the band was playing the song: "We've been waiting for >you, what took you so long?"

Great analogy. Each of the disciplines (CRV, ERV, etcRV) could also be likened to training wheels. We need them to learn to keep our balance, and while we use them, we stay in our own driveway or on our own block. But one day, the training wheels are no longer needed, and the whole neighborhood is fair game. Then one day, we learn to use the car... then the plane... then the spaceship... then...

Lyn

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


Dear Nancy,

I guess you "remotely influenced" me to post a metaphor that you and I would understand to explain the CRV/ERV relationship through the eyes of a "viewbie". Having absolutely NO experience in either CRV or ERV (at the present time), I was simply following my intuition of the relationship as I had perceived from this great mail-list. (Bless you for the hundredth time, PJ! BTW, IMHO your Halloween anniversary post was bewitching!)

The v-rati will have to rule whether there is any truth in the metaphor and what the holes are and fill them. But thanks, Nancy, for the wonderful feedback! BTW, "blessed are you healers!' Per Joe, maybe its the future "CRV/ERV trained" Vic "remotely influencing" the present "viewbie" Vic. Then again maybe not!

The v-rati consensus definitely seems to be CRV first, then ERV, in that sequence. A sort of structured, controlled, exoteric approach preceding the more free-form, individualized, self-esoteric approach to access the CC/"Cosmic Dance". However, it seems that both methods use monitors? I guess you should always show up for the "dance" with a escort. But as some of the V-rats have said, the most important thing is results!

Nancy, you lost me on the "Host" extension. I agree with the "only a small part of which we can see" (Ref the Schopenhauer quote by T.Carey??- "Every person takes the limits of their own field of vision for the limits of the world") but I have trouble with "pawns." Maybe this is just my limited "field of vision". In the game of chess, can't a pawn checkmate a King or capture a Queen?

But isn't this what this entire RV endeavor (and maybe life) is all about: enlarging our field of vision- expanding our consciousness?

If noetics is both awareness and intentionality, it makes sense to me that a receiver is potentially also a transmitter. How awful would it be to receive all this wonderful knowledge from this collective RV consciousness without being able to post our questionable 2 cents.

Aren't we all BOTH pawns AND Kings/Queens?

Blessings to all, Vic

P.S.- What kind of Irish wiskey do those leprechauns prefer?

-------
Moderator's Note: A related quote to that chess/pawn thing that you might like:

"It's all a great huge game of chess that's being played - all over the world - if this is the world at all, you know... I wouldn't mind being a Pawn, if only I might join - though of course I should _like_ to be a Queen, best." -- Alice, in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass

Which reminds me of his quote that so well sums up RV:

"I can't believe that!" said Alice. "Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes." Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe in impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. ---- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass


A reply to Vic on what kind of whiskey leprachauns prefer... I know Liam mention John Jameson... I am partial to John Powers... a very popular brand in the Republic of Ireland... I was glad to see he (Liam) did not mention Bushmills... for the unitiated... Bushmills is distilled and bottled on the north coast of Ulster (British Occupied Ireland) and is a very popular drink among the non-Catholic overseers in Ulster.... John Jameson is distilled in the Free States of Ireland and is quite popular with the people who were the first Christian religion in Ireland... My preference is John Powers because it is distilled way way South in the Free States where people still speak the true Irish tongue and are very likely to have to go to a may if you mention countries like England, America or the entire Continent of Europe (with exception of Vatican City)....

PJ ...don't bounce this...the net needs a little culture now and then...Gene Kincaid......

[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]

---------
Moderator's Note: Only the Irish could tie alcoholic beverages to some critical fundamental of culture. Ha. No but really: this post has zip to do with RV. You are supposed to make something up, no matter what, that relates to it RV, even in a joking way, to go with your posts. It isn't much to ask. I'd've bounced it to personal email anyway, except I kinda liked that commanding tone you had there.... ;-} -- PJ


>I made an affirmation composed of several statements, each of which addressed a >shortcoming in my viewing, but addressing it in a positive way.

I am all for *positive* affirmations. I was surprised when I came upon a suggestion on the Remote Viewing Research Centre BBS by a Mr Cotterell - (something) recommending beginning a session saying to oneself words something like,

*** Do not process any information from the imagination.***

Fine. Do not think of a pink elephant. But it is inevitable you will.

The mind ignores the word NOT. The subconscious is like a child, tell 'em they can not have a bike and it becomes the most important thing. I don't want a drink. I don't want a cigarette. I don't want that cake.

Better to say, Ignore all information..... Just my 2p worth, for any other newbie who may have read his post.

Now, what ever you do, do NOT yawn. Do NOT even think about yawning. OK?

MaryD z z z z


>>I made an affirmation composed of several statements, each of which >addressed a >>shortcoming in my viewing, but addressing it in a positive way. >The mind ignores the word NOT. The subconscious is like a child, tell 'em >they can not have a bike and it becomes the most important thing. I don't >want a drink. I don't want a cigarette. I don't want that cake. Better to >say, Ignore all information..... Just my 2p worth, for any other newbie >who may have read his post.

I use hypnotic affirmation tapes consistantly in regard to remote viewing, intuition, health, etc.

The word NOT is unacceptable and self defeating in these tapes.

The particular message I use to cover information access is .....

......."your conscious/subconscious interconnection will process information that originates only from the matrix and ignore other sources".......

This generalised affirmation covers both remote perception formats - Analogue remote viewing such as CRV and ERV... and... Digital (yes/no) remote viewing such as mental/physical dowsing responses.

Jim F


Rick S wrote:

> It was a lesson in "intention", and it brings to mind some of the > discussion about "cool down" we've had here recently. Many of the > examples > given seem related to "intention" or cranking up intention somehow.

Hi, Rick - nice name ya got there! Great place to live, too!

Regarding "intention", I've had a lot of good luck with it.

I first came across the concept from Jane Roberts' Seth books. Later I read some non-psychic business material about how the MAJORITY of business leaders have an ability to identify and focus on their sense of intention. Intention vs extreme desire. I know that for me there's a qualitative difference between the two that I experience somewhere in my gut. Intention vs. desire just feels a whole lot different. I WANT to pick up this glass of water vs I INTEND to pick up this glass of water. Try it enough times and you'll probably notice that there really is some sort of "felt" difference between the two.

Take care . . . Rick L

-------
Moderator's Note: If it wasn't for Jane & Seth opening my mind with all the subtlety of a psychic crowbar, I wouldn't be here. Good stuff! -- PJ


For a few months, I had seemed to plateau in my viewing ability. I mean plateau at a rather mediocre level. It was frustrating.

Then I did one of those mediocre sessions with an instructor monitoring me. Her advice after the session was that I construct a personal affirmation which I would review prior to future sessions. I knew intuitively and immediately that she was on to something. So I did it. Ten days ago, I made an affirmation composed of several statements, each of which addressed a shortcoming in my viewing, but addressing it in a positive way. For example, realizing that I was approaching the target rather unaggressively, I made this statement a part of my affirmation: "I will attack and explore this target aggressively."

Since using this affirmation, I've done 3 further sessions. Each has been a HUGE cut above all that preceded. It's as if I'm finally off the plateau.

It was a lesson in "intention", and it brings to mind some of the discussion about "cool down" we've had here recently. Many of the examples given seem related to "intention" or cranking up intention somehow.

So, for the newer viewers, if the idea of using a customized affirmation appeals, try it and see what happens.

Rick S


END ARCHIVE 38
October 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.