Viewer Email Group
This is an archive file of the public Viewer [VWR] email list. This list is sponsored by the private Viewer Forum, hosted by Paradigm Systems and Design, and owned and operated by PJ Gaenir. It is dedicated to discussion of the practical aspects, theories and experience of formal psychic methodologies such as Controlled Remote Viewing, and independent efforts by the public interested in working under the formal RV protocol (the set of rules which define "remote viewing" as the term was coined in a science lab). You can find details, rules, and a form for joining the email group here. The list is moderated during operation and archiving. I remove last names and detail locations of contributors (within the archives) for privacy, and signatures for space conservation. I have added notes marking the posts from former U.S. intelligence remote viewers. Archiving of posts is done manually and may not include all posts.
This is the fortieth archive.
BEGIN ARCHIVE 40
>My last session was a complete washout. Not one thing right and no >association, that I can understand. But it felt like a real signal, and I >worked it. (I know I wasn't following a stray cat.) I am keeping it, in >case I find a connection, or meaningful coincidence.
ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT NOTE!!!! I'm glad to see that you are keeping the session. If a beginning (or even advanced) viewer only keeps the good sessions and throws away the bad ones, they might learn their strengths, but they will never learn their weaknesses. There are some things you can't learn by succeeding. If you don't keep the bad sessions, then you'll never see the patterns of recurring errors, recurring near-misses, etc. Don't ever throw a session away, and don't just keep data from the good sessions. Partial data is garbage, and like the computer-saying goes, Garbage in = garbage out.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
As I am not yet a viewer I'm trying to get a handle on bilocation. I've just finished "Psychic Warriors". After reading C. Brown, I. Swann and now, D. Morehouse, I can't help but get the impression that bilocation can feel damned real. But where, if possible, could the experience be placed?
When we are dreaming, we experience the environment as quite real. But, upon awakening, the "reality" of the dream or even nightmare, can't hold a candle to the . . . what's the word here . . solidity (?) or density (?)of our physical reality.
So, does bilocating feel somewhat like an OBE? A lucid dream? A hypnagogic state? Physical here-and-now? Anywhere in between? How do Viewers experience it?
Might we add that one never really outgrows doing basic nuts&bolts sessions on basic target sites here on earth?
>I am having great difficulty coming to terms with my last session. >"Martians, current earth activity".
I have a suggestion for you about this type of target. Cut and Paste PJ's answer into a word processor, use a nice font, and make a copy of it suitable for framing. Post it prominently where you can see it every time you get any tasking. Remember, THE VIEWER IS IN CHARGE OF THE SESSION. Tasking is part of your session. Any time someone gives you tasking like this, tell them that that's not what you do.
While you are in the process of learning, use ONLY targets which have provable feedback. The reason you don't understand what you got is because there is no real context to put it into and judge it against. Don't be in such a hurry to solve the mysteries of the universe that you become the "sorcerer's apprentice" in your work habits. While you are learning, work with targets from which you can learn something.
Keep track of every perception, learn what you are good at and what you are weak at (colors, sizes, shapes, purposes, etc.). After, and only after you have established a firm and dependable "viewer profile" can you in good faith accept a non-feedback target. Then, when you finish it, you will be able to say, "I don't know what or where this target is, but I felt warm air, and I know that I always get the temperature right, so I'll put faith in that. I also saw red sand, and I know that I don't usually get the color right, so I'll hold off believing that until I get more dependable information." In that way, you will be able to >>>describe<<< the target with more accuracy and dependability, and will no longer feel the need to >>>identify<<< it. Let's face it, you are still doing the session and then asking what it means: what IS it? You are still trying to identify.
If you want to know about your perceptions:
I had red Color perception sand AOL Warm Temperature perception air. AOL I was wandering around You either contact with the site, or AOL turning over AOL flat Shape perception cream Color perception stones AOL with long, Size perception orangy, Color perception claw like Shape perception hands AOL (with perception of plurality) in a red, Color perception sand Either texture perception (or AOL) desert AOL like Morocco AOL or Ayres Rock AOL but no aborigines AOL and not religious Conceptual perception bored out of my skull Emotional distractor stuck in this place Emotional distractor intensly irritable Stronger emotional distractor seeing the red mud around Abu Simbu AOL knowing there would be tourists in time AOL Hating the flies Emotional distractor tied to an AOL Didn't want to be here Emotional distractor whats the point Emotional distractor No evolution or growth in the people AOL It felt person/place/historic/stuck. Emotional distractor tied to an AOL
Notice how the early use of nouns leads you very quickly into more and more AOLs, and then in a downward spiral of emotional distractors which eventually end the session.
If this were a target which had feedback, you could individually judge each of your perceptions and find out for yourself what you are good at and what you need to work on. This builds a solid base of confidence and self-awareness that can't be gained any other way. Whenever I send targets to people, I always add in a cover page which contains this message:
Remember, the purpose of a practice target is not to learn something about the target. The purpose of a practice target is to learn something about yourself.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
PJ said >and if what you're picking up is tasker >intent and so on, if your only validation of the target is what the group >of people giving it to you believe, ...
So, does that explain what I got. From 3,000 miles away, off the web, off a blind target.
Remember I'm in the UK. We have UFOs over Salisbury plain, but, with respect, I doubt many Americans have even heard of the place.I couldn't do a leap into the New Mexican desert, because, at that time, I had no knowledge that there are/were supposed to be Martians living there. I do now, because SRV have it on their new student sessions site. Had I read that in advance, I could indeed rationalise the session, as I am now doing.
Are Martians now part of the folklore culture? Are we tapping a planetary belief system. And if instead, it is tasker intent, then surely the vwr is potentially wide open for manipulation, even when they attempt to avoid tasker perceptuals, if those perceptuals have taken on a life of their own, so to speak. A group could create a task, focused around their dogmatic belief system, to prove these same beliefs, and the vwr could connect to that widely held belief system. eg Klu Klux Klan v. OJ Simpson. Or am I up the creek without a paddle again. Sigh. MaryD
Mary wrote: >>So, does that explain what I got. From 3,000 miles away, off the web, off a blind target. <snip> ... Are Martians now part of the folklore culture? Are we tapping a planetary belief system. And if instead, it is tasker intent, then surely the vwr is potentially wide open for manipulation, even when they attempt to avoid tasker perceptuals, if those perceptuals have taken on a life of their own, so to speak. A group could create a task, focused around their dogmatic belief system, to prove these same beliefs, and the vwr could connect to that widely held belief system.
This is a topic that spans half the planet without even starting into the RV aspect of it. Personally, I am highly influenced by my past studies in Jungian theories and Seth, which I can't describe in an email, but suffice to say, the more I see and learn about psychic ability, the more I believe that those ideas best describe -- for now, with the words we have -- the reality(s) we live in.
When it comes to 'Tasker Overlay' or any other overlay, including that of the public, when you think about that, it has to mean that somewhere in that logic process, one is assuming that anything that touches a target even psychically / emotionally /mentally, actually becomes part of that target. (And, anything you touch, touches you back.)
By this logical process, a thing does not even have to exist physically before it becomes "a thing." A thought is "a thing." Two of the same thoughts put together might be a bigger or stronger "thing." 10, ten thousand, ten million thoughts put together might be a pretty damn big thing. It is certainly, in any case, at least as "strong" as a target pull to someone aiming at it as, say, a phone booth would be.
So, yeah. You don't know -- I don't know -- nobody knows -- where a target begins or ends, where people's thoughts about it or with it, fears and experiences and so on, affect it or become it or vice versa.
The point I was trying to make about "trust" in a tasker is actually being made quite well by you, by accident, with your logical questions. You are learning to gather psychic data. You are learning about yourself. You have a lot of work and growth ahead of you. You are not attempting to explain the universe. Just a target. The universe is a little more than you can fit into one RV session. One step at a time here. :-)
When that target is some "cosmic thang," instead of learning from your session, you're forced to wander into wild hypothesis about it, and about yourself. Then, you're forced to question yourself. If you got this data, does that mean it has to be right? If it's wrong, does that mean you're no good? If it's right, does that mean everything you know about god and history is wrong? If it's wrong, how can you 'trust yourself?' How do you know whether this should give you trust in your abilities or make you suspicious? If it's right, how come other people get different data? If it's wrong, how come other people get the same data?
In the long run what it boils down to is a choice: 1) you can accept your session data because you want to accept yourself, accept remote viewing, etc. In order to believe in yourself as a Viewer, and in order to believe in remote viewing as really working, you now are _forced_ to believe in whatever bizarre thing you just collected data on. Because if you invalidate that session, you invalidate both yourself and RV. So if somebody just tasked you with Martians under the mountain or the second coming of Christ or your future as an alien baby outlet, even if you hate the idea, even if you don't intellectually buy it, even if it harms your psychology, you are now forced to accept it as valid. Much of this is subconscious -- this is a HYPNOTIC modality, make no mistake -- and if it sounds a little cult-ish, well... they operate on the same principles.
2) Or, you can say that you don't want to believe in (check one: cosmic impending doom, alien pathogens-in-a-can, the goddess Isis, etc.), and so you're going to reject that session data altogether. Now, you will always have a little niggling wonder in the back of your mind. And, you will have seriously harmed your faith in yourself.
This kind of "cognitive dissonance" can literally drive people out of remote viewing -- and does.
It all seemed to start with those !$(*%&!@E$*# Martians and the "TRV," then "SRV," obsession with them. It really annoys me. It really annoys me MORE that I MYSELF off and on have dreams about -- of all things -- Mars and Martians. Just last night no less. (Woke up after being told by a young girl, during a future time-travel visit to Mars somebody took me on, that she had been "rescued" from Earth in 2037 and brought there.) It's totally embarrassing to admit. Maybe I am losing my freeeeekin' mind..... and I can't even blame it on too much RV, since I have almost zero time to practice.
Quick, some mundania! Feed PJ red meat and boring targets!!
Thank you Lyn for your advice. I really had no way of knowing the quality of the target list I chose would contain such esoteric targets. It was a case of suck it and see. I shall follow Liam's advice re National Geographic photos. And do some of Mike CTs on PSI Hands.
Having read the rest of your response re my perceptions, apart from initially wanting to weep, I appreciate such constructive criticsm.I have a couple of Qs, if I may.
air = AOL .... how _do_ I describe it
I was wandering around = You either contact with the site, or AOL.... how do I know which
> bored out of my skull= Emotional distractor ....why a distractor and not a valid emotion pertaining to the target.
> > Notice how the early use of nouns leads you very quickly into more and >more AOLs, and then in a downward spiral of emotional distractors which >eventually end the session.
One final Q, (in small and tremorous voice). I seem to get a feeling of either "being", or observing. Is one right another wrong.
> perceptuals have taken on a life of their own, so to speak. A group could > create a task, focused around their dogmatic belief system, to prove >these same beliefs, and the vwr could connect to that widely held belief >system.
Parapsychology researchers in Europe have come up with the term "Ganzfeld" (lit., "total field"). I think the concept of the Ganzfeld can be of general use in thinking about R/V. Even the physicists now are grappling with the idea that everything in the universe we know is essentially related to, connected with, and influenced by, everything else that exists. Some (David Bohm for one) have gone so far as to propose that that even the notion of delimited 'somethings,' which we normally take objects to be, is a conceptual artifact diverting us from perception of the underlying wholeness of creation.
PJ makes the point, as others before have done in various ways, that, since the expectations of the tasker are part of the tasker/viewer dyad, they may well influence any viewer with insufficiently developed discrimination. This would be implied by the Ganzfeld hypothesis: the viewer has to some degree left consensus 'reality', and (within self-imposed limits) is exploring the "total field."
One way to limit (not eliminate) such influences is to keep the monitor blind to the target.
(PJ knows, and others should be aware, that I am not a remote viewer, only a kibitzer thereof.)
Moderator's Note: Some excellent research in remote viewing was done in ganzfeld trials, such as by the late Dr. Honorton. You can find a statistician's review of some of this work, which includes comments about and examples from this kind of remote viewing, along with other scientist's commentaries and an author's rejoinder, at the home page of Dr. Jessica Utts: http://www-stat.ucdavis.edu/users/utts/ There's a link there to a paper titled "Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology," that's the one you want. If you can get through the science and statistics to the end of the rejoinder, you'll be better educated for it. There are some handy nuggets of insight into psi research and psychology in there as well. -- PJ
>>and if what you're picking up is tasker >>intent and so on, if your only validation of the target is what the group >>of people giving it to you believe, ...
That will never be the only validation. If it is, then you are working with the wrong group.
MaryD wrote: >Remember I'm in the UK. We have UFOs over Salisbury plain, but, with >respect, I doubt many Americans have even heard of the place.I couldn't do >a leap into the New Mexican desert, because, at that time, I had no >knowledge that there are/were supposed to be Martians living there. I do >now, because SRV have it on their new student sessions site. Had I read >that in advance, I could indeed rationalise the session, as I am now >doing.
You can't be doing Martian Targets and be getting feedback, other than what someone "believes." You are operating within someone's closed loop. I doubt very seriously you are either learning RV that way, nor are you being given appropriate feedback. Go to real targets, with real information in them.
>Are Martians now part of the folklore culture? Are we tapping a planetary >belief system. And if instead, it is tasker intent, then surely the vwr is >potentially wide open for manipulation, even when they attempt to avoid >tasker perceptuals, if those perceptuals have taken on a life of their >own, so to speak. A group could create a task, focused around their >dogmatic belief system, to prove these same beliefs, and the vwr could >connect to that widely held belief system. eg Klu Klux Klan v. OJ Simpson. > Or am I up the creek without a paddle again. Sigh. MaryD
Yes, yes, and yes. One of the unfortunate problems with RV (and one of it's beautiful aspects); is that the person who is selecting the target can make or break a new viewer. You are being asked to do things way out of your league at the moment; you are being given targets which cannot be proved or disproved; and you are being asked to decide between real and imaginary information--something a world class remote viewer will have lots of difficulty with, even when carrying around years of experience. Find a new viewing group, or someone who knows what they are doing in selecting training types of targets. You will do a lot better over the long haul.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
Sorry, its me MaryD again.
Firstly, I really wish some other newbies would de-lurk and ask their own Qs.
Once again, thank you Lyn, Liam, Gene, PJ, et al, for your comprehensive advice. I have learned so much in a very short time.
I have learned to discipline myself from leaping to a conclusion and checking the Target description.eg Curved white pillars of stone, central to the people, wasn't The White House. It was Stonehenge.I would have loved to do Stonehenge, and I blew it.
I feel now, I have am getting past the initial excitement, and beginning to work the target, in my own little way. I know now to write down, absolutely everthing I get. Every picture, sound, feeling, thought. Whatever. No matter how absurd or trivial. WRITE IT DOWN.
I am having great difficulty coming to terms with my last session. "Martians, current earth activity".
Within about 10 secs of writing down the 2x4 numbers, I had red sand. Warm air.<SNIP> Soon,I was wandering around turning over flat cream stones with long orangy claw like hands, in a red sand desert, (like Morocco)(or Ayres Rock, but no aborigines, and not religious) bored out of my skull, stuck in this place, intensly irritable, seeing the red mud around Abu Simbu, knowing there would be tourists in time. Hating the flies. Didn't want to be here, whats the point. No evolution or growth in the people. It felt person/place/historic/stuck.
What IS it I am actually getting, in a case like this. Am I Rviewing the written word of the Target and making something up. Are there martians, am I totally off my trolley, what. This is a serious Q. The experience defies all logic and explanation in the "real" world as I know it, It does not compute. Mental chaos reigns, which is OK, I know chaos is good as a precursor for learning.<G>
Moderator's Note: Mary, your questions are excellent, please keep asking them. You are going through exactly the process people learning this do. You are also suffering a few issues you would not in "real" remote viewing, because you are dealing with a lot of targeting that is... shall we say both fringe and outside any good training protocol. Targets without feedback are horrible for training. I know this sounds like I'm getting political which I don't allow on the list, but this isn't methods-based, it's across the board; the point of training is your subconscious and conscious learning to tell what it did right vs. wrong IN DETAIL based on feedback, and if you're RVing stuff without feedback, you never have any way to learn that. It's like practicing your typing without seeing your hands or the paper, ever... you could be practicing _wrong_ and never know it... and if what you're picking up is tasker intent and so on, if your only validation of the target is what the group of people giving it to you believe, you are now forced to use the GROUP as feedback rather than facts.
Regarding the Martians, do you remember how it's been said that you can target psychology? A person's thoughts? What do you think would happen if somebody targeted you with something a lot of people believed in -- and more, something a lot of people had tried to "psychically tune into?" *_Thoughtforms are targets._* That's why most real remote viewers will not even try to target stuff that is highly popular in the media, there's far too much telepathic overlay to trust your data. I am not saying it's true or not about the Martians. God only knows. I've met stranger things in my own life. I'm simply saying that there is no feedback so the target is useless. Nobody can tell you what's on Mars. They can tell you what THEY think is on Mars or what they "picked up as a psychic impression," but that only further begs the question of whether your data is psi based on the facts or based on the energy they've already invested into that target.
In your case, you coincidentally got what the people posting the target are known to already believe. No feedback. Now, your faith in yourself and remote viewing rests on this group. They are your validation. Their approval is your feedback. This is well intentioned on their part I'm sure, but the results tend to create cults and certainly are not based on facts, and I personally recommend _avoiding_ any tasker who cannot stick to feedback-able targets during training, and if that tasker is a web site, so be it. You may find different results in terms of strength or emotional contact if you use other targets on the web than those. Try some of the basic level targets on the firedocs site, there's about 40.
Just to let everyone know out there that I owe e-mail to that I just got back from Cincinatti, only to be greeted by 76 messages, mostly about remote viewing (see, PJ, I managed to work it in!), and will get to my e-mail answering duties as I get time. Looks like things are continuing to be exciting out there. Fun, isn't it!
[Archive Note: Paul Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]
Moderator's Note: There you are. A little out of touch, ARE we?? Hey, I was just going through my class notes tonight. I've decided I'm going to have to stay on your good side, so you can eventually tell me what it is I took notes on. Clearly handwriting, after 12 years of typing, is not my strong point..... -- PJ
Thomas E Carey wrote: > Gurdjieff kept saying that most people are "asleep" even when they're awake. > A friend of mine is into Christian Science pretty deeply and I've heard a > good deal about Mary Baker Eddy from him. She apparently said outright that > people in general are in a hypnotic state in their daily lives. > > If so, Joe's requirement of "tacit approval" might be the default condition > for a lot of people.
Telepathic influence and communication with a subconscious is not all that far out. Everyone has an information filter the resides between the conscious mind and the subcnscious mind. This filter keeps us from being overloaded. As your brainwave patterns begin to slow and relax, as in a meditative state, you tend to isolate out much of the distraction reducing the amount of stimuli that is incoming. The filter then allows the portions of the more predominant information to flow between the conscious and subconscious. When the conscious stimuli is reduced then the access to the subconscious is allowed on a more active basis, thus information flow to the conscious, as when doing Remote Viewing, Reading, or any other information gathering. Basically, information flows both ways, but the more subtle information from the subconscious mind gets overridden by the amount of stimulation of the conscious mind inputs, from the outside.
I'm not sure if I am being clear, but look at it like a semi-permeable layer and information flows happens. Just to keep us from being overwhelmed by the information transfer most is filtered. Under hypnosis, we can soften the layer and allow more selective information to flow. The reduction in BW patterns is accomplished in many ways, including hypnosis.
Your questions are soooooo good, this stuff is just great for the archives. You're my hero.
You will never learn how you process data and affect yourself (including how to badly affect yourself) if you don't DO it sometimes. Frankly it's better to make LOTS of clueless mistakes now, and be really appalled about them and what they did to your session -- for about 10 minutes. That's all you need. Then, you _remember_ in the future. You learn.
You're doing great -- just your thinking process and questions demonstrates that you're really going at this in a good way.
Much of learning in remote viewing is just that -- learning after the fact. You do your session, you document in detail what you got correct/ incorrect/ can't be judged, and if you really want to grow personally, you document your life, dreams, thoughts during the day, realizations, theories about why things work with you, et al. Then you can always go back to them and learn in retrospect, comparison, maturity.
Anybody can follow the technical structure of CRV. You could teach it to a 16 year old in a week. There's a lot more to remote viewing. The methods are probably 5% and on the outside. You, on the inside processing, and getting it into communication, is the other 95%. In order to learn about yourself on the inside, you have to pay attention to yourself. A lot of attention. Over time you begin to see your symbologies, things that work for you or don't, and so on. Much of the theory and realization that leads to learning about yourself on the inside _comes from_ analyzing what you did on the outside after the fact. (If you have no feedback, that wouldn't be possible. You have to be able to compare to what you got correct, incorrect, what you didn't get at all, how you presented something one way when it was slightly another, etc.)
As for how you classify things: In CRV, one of the difficult things to learn sometimes is that data is not always "objectively" anything. One piece of data can be ten different things, depending on how you felt, how you meant it -- and how you responded to it. A great deal of documentation of what you're doing, of how you did in detail, over time, will help one understand this more comfortably. How you classify something during a session -- for instance, you could classify that bored emotion as an emotional impression (EI) (in Lyn's terms, site impression, SI) instead, and I probably would if I got it during a session -- in retrospect you might look at it and realize that it affected you, and how, and realize that it actually qualified as a distractor, or whatever. In a session I'm pretty sure Lyn would call that an EI/SI (I could be wrong). It is after the fact, looking at your data, how it affected you, how your session turned out, etc. that he decided on the ED.
This is why targets WITH FEEDBACK are so critical to learning remote viewing. The vast majority of everything you learn about yourself is based on comparing what you did to what was correct and then going over how you processed it, how you communicated it, and why you were correct, or incorrect, or how data affected you (which you can often tell by the accuracy and focus of following data).
Psychically tuning into targets with no feedback, no matter what method you use, pretty much qualifies as daydreaming until you've got some facts to back it up. That doesn't mean it's bad. If you've got an hour or two to kill, it's fun. It just means that you can't learn much from it, it doesn't add to any growing base of knowledge, and may in fact create a whole new list of confusions and wonderings that can never be analyzed or learned from, because you don't have feedback to help you do so.
(Please bear in mind that I am not an expert on this subject in any way. I am just a student. This is just my perspective, as always.)
Sorry Mary, I'm literally typing in my sleep again --
>>for instance, you could classify that bored emotion as an emotional impression (EI) (in Lyn's terms, site impression, SI) instead, and I probably would if I got it during a session --
In other words, if I had that in a session, I would assume it was valid target data (possibly something somebody there was feeling that I was picking up -- though, WHERE in my session I got that data would contribute to how I classified that part) and classify it as such. After the fact I might see that it created automatic emo-based AOLs or avoidance and recognize that had I been paying more attention to myself, I might have declared it otherwise. Usually if it's AI/SI, you would have got CLOSER to the target and your session improved or at least stayed steady. That you wound down fast indicates it may have been something else.
>>(Please bear in mind that I am not an expert on this subject in any way. I am just a student. This is just my perspective, as always.)
I should probably precede everything I write with that. It's so easy to sound like you're lecturing when you're the only one talking in an email. Some of what I say is my own understanding based really not on anything I was told specifically, just my own logic process based on what little I know. Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes I'm wrong. I usually tend to be rather extreme in both cases, so be warned. ;-)
I know you said you were asleep, so I would like to comment on 2 terms you used from the perspective of what we learned from Paul. I am also still a student, so if I need correcting too, maybe one of the "pros" will please do it. <G>
You used the expression < doorknobbing (AOL Drive in Swann terms)>
As I understand it, doorknobbing is happening when the target is, say a building, and you have your nose up against the doorknob, and you are getting data like smooth, rounded, shiny, metallic...all of which is valid target data, but from a very close-up perspective. This situation is where a monitor comes in handy -- it is corrected by a simple movement exercise to regain the larger perspective. In other words, you are on target, but you are too close and focussing on some attracting aspect of the target rather than the whole target. (tree vs. forest)
AOL Drive, on the other hand, is the situation when "an AOL or related AOLs overpower the system and drive the process" (Paul/Ingo). In other words, you have an AOL (and it could be undeclared) and then you start getting data that supports and describes the AOL, not the target. In other words, it isn't valid target data but you think it is. A good monitor should be able to catch this too.
So the two terms are different in that one is valid target data from a narrow perspective and the other is a stream of analytic data made up by the left brain.
Moderator's Note: Yes, I WAS asleep, and you ARE correct. The Swannism AOL Drive is SCWERL in Buchanan-acronym -- when you have an AOL you can't let go of and it wraps around you and just drags you down into it. Doorknobbing doesn't have a Swann term that I know of; although, AOL Peacocking is vaguely related in the sense that it can apply either to getting the same AOL over and over and not being able to get out of it -- even if the AOL is on the signal line (as in, correct). Dunno what I was thinking.... sigh! -- PJ
> So the two terms are different in that one is valid target data from a > narrow perspective and the other is a stream of analytic data made up by > the left brain.
This seems to make use of a monitor virtually mandatory especially for new RVers.
How many sessions did I write off as total flops that could have been door knobbing?
It must be a greater problem when going only as far as S3.
>As I understand it, doorknobbing is happening when the target is, say a >building, and you have your nose up against the doorknob <snip> In other words, >you are on target, but you are too close and focussing on some attracting >aspect of the target rather than the whole target. (tree vs. forest) >AOL Drive, on the other hand, is the situation when "an AOL or related AOLs >overpower the system and drive the process" (Paul/Ingo).
Absolutely right on both counts, Leveda. And PJ is correct--we don't have an Ingo term for "doorknobbing." I believe we owe Skip Atwater for the term originally. And no, it is not related to AOL in the least. It involves the viewer's point-of-view/awareness being plastered right up against some relatively small/minor aspect of the target, while failing to see the overall (and more important) aspects of the target.
[Archive Note: Paul Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]
Paul H. Smith wrote: >Absolutely right on both counts, Leveda. And PJ is correct--we don't have >an Ingo term for "doorknobbing." I believe we owe Skip Atwater for the >term originally.
Not really... we actually owe MR, KB, HT, N(?), JB, and others, who also referred to it as... dust-balling, mirror-nosing, etc., etc.
It was originally meant to indicate that a viewer was too close to a portion of the target which--while maybe being informationally correct--was probably of no value or was only twisting the "view." I would add that "most" of what was known about RV within the unit (circa 1978-1983) was birthed there (SRI research withstanding), and was the result of the efforts of numerous people to include the above as well as Skip Atwater. Certainly what is now known about RV from an operational viewpoint (that is "applications") was "mostly" developed within that very small group of people and has changed very little over the course of years. There was no one person responsible for RV or its development, it was a group effort. :)
Sorry, just keeping the history straight.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
END ARCHIVE 40
A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.
Top of Page