firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 052
.


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 fifty-second archive.


November 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 52

A newbie with a different opinion. Although dowsing and RV are both a means of gaining information psychically, IMHO, they have very little else in common. In dowsing you formulate a Q, which can only be answered with a yes or no. eg. Is it blue? Is it more than 100 years old? Is this safe for me to eat? Was this used in battle? Is there water here? Is the hostage here? Is there a bridge I can use to cross the river to the North? Is it more than 1 mile away? If you are seeking a concept, you have to think your way through the various concepts, ie analyse the Q in advance, to get to a yes/no answer. In RV, that is the very thing you don't do. This puts my mind to the new RV system which gave nothing but a list of answers to choose from. That IMHO is dowsing. Not RV.

Light the blue touch paper and run. MaryD.


Although dowsing and RV are both > a means of gaining information psychically, IMHO, they have very > little else in common. In dowsing you formulate a Q, ...

Dear Mary,

Yes you are correct. All psychic skill relate to the same mecchanics and mental processes. Dowsing is best used in locating, due to the limitations in the communication processes. It is just as valid as part of an overall skill set, but it is not RV. The Main Difference is the basis of information flow. In Dowsing, the operator needs to first distinguish the questions, that presupposes that the operator has some knowledge (front loading) to formulate questions around. In RV, the information flow is more direct and the structure dictates and focuses attention to the types of information and then the mind selects according to the characteristics of the information flow. Good observation Mary.

Rob


>In dowsing you formulate a Q, which can only be answered with a >yes or no. eg. Is it blue? <snip>

This simplifies it too much. One of the pioneers of modern systems of dowsing was Henri Mager, a Parisian, who used an eight-segment colour wheel to establish the impurities in the water he was finding. Use a watch face instead and you have twelve possible replies to your question - the pendulum is started off swinging from the centre towards at 12 o'c which is "neutral" and the swing precesses round to one of the numbers between 1 and 12 (right round) which you accord meanings to suit your question - even degrees of yes and no, if you wish, or percentages up to 120%. You can switch to logarithmic responses instantly (eg 3 o'c = 1000) to get the scale of a response.

In advanced dowsing it's important to put your prejudices on one side for a moment and establish the framework of enquiry that will prove most useful. To start with this can be done by dowsing words from books, but this is quite laborious. With practice you can get into sensing the word directly and then you're fairly quickly into getting a clairaudient readout of a situation, like "what's going on at this place?". I regularly do business situations for people in the horse world where you meet some fairly fruity characters and need to know what's cooking at the other end.

Dan W


>>In dowsing you formulate a Q, which can only be answered with a yes >>or no. eg. Is it blue? <snip>

Simplistic it may be, but Mager's disc and your watch are still extensions of the yes/no. Is it 20%? Is it 40%? Is it 100ft down. Is it 200ft down. You are still defining a set of parameters and formulating a Q.

RV will _tell_ you it is red. In dowsing you have to _ask_ is it red.

In Rv you ask, then analyse. In dowsing you analyse, then ask.

>From another post, >for present time, the tasking enveloppe has a map of the world with >the continents (and maybe ocean areas) color-coded

Have you tried using the various pendulum lengths & rates for countries, it can be easier that way.

MaryD.

----------
Moderator's Note: I think we agree on your main point Mary: dowsing for data requires a different tasking, and in some cases a different process, than "remote viewing." You're right about that. My earlier point in response was not to disagree with this at all. Merely to point out that yes, -and,- other parts of CRV methods structure, such as ideograms, work quite differently than 'standard RV' as well. The CRV methods contain a number of psi approaches and analytical tools which make working within the structure a somewhat... broader band of application. Many people new to RV methods don't realize that there's a lot more involved with the methods than there is with the Protocol. Thanks for giving us a chance to make that clear. -- PJ


>I would be careful about any generalizing when it comes to ideograms. They are >simply meant to get someone closer to the reception of information and further >away from the conclusions that one might be making about information. I've seen >some pretty extravagant ideograms, and some rather short, small, quick, and >frail ideograms. The whole idea is understanding what becomes repetitive and >understood over time--at least as pertinent to accuracy about major gestalts. [snip]

Hi Joe and all;

I thought long and hard, before deciding to hop in on this one. I agree with you Joe. I think we are probably disagreeing with Ingo on this one as well as some of the more experienced viewers. The reason why I hesitated answering is because I did not want to confuse the newcomers. For newcomers it is probably best to stick to the short and sweet ideogram rule. Ingo never let me decode any long intricate ideograms while in training. He always made me call TM break (Too Much Break). This told my subconscious it was sending too much information.

My next ideogram would then be smaller and less complex. After working CRV for a couple years, I started getting the more complex, long ideograms again and decoding them correctly.

May the Force be with you,

Liam

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


Liam wrote: >I thought long and hard, before deceiding to hop in on this one. I agree >with you Joe. I think we are probably disagreeing with Ingo on this one as >well as some of the more experienced viewers.

Actually, I don't think we are. However, what you say about...

>The reason why I hesitated answering is >because I did not want to confuse the new comers. For newcomers it is probably >best to stick to the short and sweet ideogram rule.

...is probably a good sense of what's also true. Not so much confusion, as acceleration.

>Ingo never let me decode >any long intricate ideograms while in training. He always made me call TM >break (Too Much Break). This told my subconscious it was sending too much >information.

He probably did the right thing in the beginning, because you would have been having a hard enough time figuring out the simple (quick and dirty) type of response. However, leaving you at that point and not expanding on it was probably inappropriate.

Humans are cognitive. No matter how much we'd like not to think about something...we do. Some may think (albeit--for a very short period) about something and then pretend they didn't. Some may reject what they think...by calling it some form of AOL. However, if one is really honest with themselves, they do think, and within the process by which they think, lies a great deal of truth regarding what they are thinking about.

I believe what Ingo was trying to do from the very beginning was to help people understand that process. His very structured method is a means of gaining insight to the "processing method" which is going on inside each of us. It's really a shame that once the structure has been learned (they've gotten the tool), very few can see that it is then up to them to figure out the rest (what in the hell is different about what they are doing in their own processing that distorts or reveals the information.)

regards,

Joe

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


Re these @#)+% ideograms. I have noted all comments and opinions so far, as to what I should or shouldn't do. I set out with the intention to get a basic id, but my initial pen work, (sketch/ideogram/whatever), seems to contain information as to the target.

Eg:- a dot, with lightening flash zigzags, radiating out in all directions, was a streetlamp. It took about 4 seconds to do. A loop the loop shape followed the architecture of a building. It took about a second. We are not looking at ten min technical drawings here, some take 4 or 5 secs, maybe. I simply take what I get.

It _is_ information I want, even if its not what the structure demands, and to fit the structure, I'm still stuck with the feeling of pushing the genie back into the bottle, or of biting the hand that feeds me. What takes priority, structure or information. MaryD

-------
Moderator's Note: Nancy, regardless of what I say for "textbook" stuff, the fact remains that the GOAL here is to get information. Holy cow, if you can get information AND DECIPHER IT (that's the key -- ALL ids have info), you are doing something right. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Information is always the priority. The structure is there to support acquiring and communicating the information. As far as it helps you -- and many people it does, particularly those less naturally inclined than yourself -- use it. As far as it doesn't -- forget it. This is my opinion, anyway. -- PJ


>He probably did the right thing in the beginning, because you would have >been having a hard enough time figuring out the simple (quick and dirty) >type of response. However, leaving you at that point and not expanding on it >was probably inappropriate.

Actually, I think it was the US Government's fault that "Liam" got left at this point. Due to politics the training contract got canceled. Though as Liam points out, he did go on to learn further dimensions of the ideogram, because others at the unit already had the knowledge and experience to pass along--not to mention the stuff he learned himself through subsequent experience.

>I believe what Ingo was trying to do from the very beginning was to help >people understand that process. His very structured method is a means of >gaining insight to the "processing method" which is going on inside each of >us. It's really a shame that once the structure has been learned (they've >gotten the tool), very few can see that it is then up to them to figure out >the rest (what in the hell is different about what they are doing in their >own processing that distorts or reveals the information.)

I think your intuition here about Ingo is correct. However, I'm not so sure that your observation about "very few" seeing beyond the structure is quite as "right on the money." I think it DOES hold for those who are not fully conversant with the structure. But in my experience, those who have pursued it to the bitter end, and learned it intimately, understand its uses and limitations.

Best wishes,

Paul

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


Joe,

>From my perspective (and only mine), when doing healing work the following has been true more often than not.

There seems to be a one on one correlation between anomolies in the auric field and anomolies in the body. When the methods I employ are used to find those anomolies, it is a very physical sense. A person can feel the anomoly. I have only taught about 220 people during workshops and found only 1 who couldn't "get it". Although this is not a large group, they are all doing rather well with the techniques. I have also found that when you can break up and remove the afflicting anomoly in the auric field, the disease process stops progressing and many times reverses itself and returns the body to homeostasis. I'm toying with the explanation that the bodies feedback system (both positive and negative) are involved here. But, when the anomly is removed, you can feel that it is no longer there. You can also feel if it has merely diminshed, indicating another visit or two may be in order.

Accute situations are more pronounced and easier to clear than cronic. But I think my main point here is that whether you have or have not accomplished the goal is easily discerned through tactile and visual feed back. It takes about 20 minutes to learn to see auras and when you can do that, its not to tough to see the distortions in the field related to a problem.

This too is a learned response, much like RV it does take a little practice. I have found through the years that the success rate is rather high. In fact I am currently entering into some experimentation with a local Portland area Oncologist to study the work, as it relates to cancer, as I have not yet found an effective technique for it and the estimates are that 1 in 6 people will get cancer. I'll keep you posted.

Rob

> I hope that everyone doesn't "leap to the conclusion" that energy here, > means some invisible force field surrounding someone's body or mind that > stetches out into the universe carrying information. That is not what is > meant--although it might be thought by some to be a close definition. > What it means is "entropy." That is; THE MEASURE OF UNAVAILABLE ENERGY > WITHIN A CLOSED SYSTEM DUE TO CHANGE.

[ Moderator's Note: Joe was specifically referring to some scientific theory and investigation related to entropy -- as a physics term -- not as a metaphysical term. :-) ]


Joe McM wrote: "His (Ingo) very structured method is a means of gaining insight to the "processing method" which is going on inside each of us"

IMHO, this is a very effective, introductary description of CRV, "FAVP" (from a viewbie perspective).

I was fascinated in Joe's new edition of MIND TREK when he talks about his "Three Greatest Potentials for RV" (New Chap 22). He says:

"There is a very strong indication within the scientific literature concerning remote viewing, that targets which emit large amounts of energy (especially nuclear) actually produce more information, which increases the probability of success many-fold".

Absolutely fascinating! I wonder: can this correlation between results and high "physical energy" targets be expected also with high "emotional energy" targets?

Nancy commented: "Is everybody but me in their head?" Now I understand "empath". Thank you. Does that mean high "empath" viewers tend to jump to Stage/Phase IV or are very accurate in S/P IV feelings?

Nancy, take "heart": " You never really know something untill it falls from the head to the heart"- Blaine Lee, POWER PRINCIPLE.

Finally,PJ said : "The default of human nature, much as it may surprise many, does seem to be the positive, not the negative."

To me, this is the DEFAULT "question" of humanity. The core. The essence. The source. Are we by creation- "fallen" or "asleep"? My heart agrees with you PJ yet my mind says maybe there is no "default" condition. Ah, the ever present sweet paradox. BOTH.

Blessings, Vic


>I was fascinated in Joe's new edition of MIND TREK when he talks about >his "Three Greatest Potentials for RV" (New Chap 22).»He says: >"There is a very strong indication within the scientific literature >concerning remote viewing, that targets which emit large amounts of >energy (especially nuclear) actually produce more information, which >increases the probability of success many-fold". > >Absolutely fascinating! I wonder: can this correlation between results >and high "physical energy" targets be»expected also with high >"emotional energy" targets?

Probably.

I hope that everyone doesn't "leap to the conclusion" that energy here, means some invisible force field surrounding someone's body or mind that stetches out into the universe carrying information. That is not what is meant--although it might be thought by some to be a close definition.

What it means is "entropy." That is; THE MEASURE OF UNAVAILABLE ENERGY WITHIN A CLOSED SYSTEM DUE TO CHANGE.

In other words, think of everything as being in a constant state of change. We feel that since ESP operates very much like any other of our senses (sight, hearing, etc.), that it probably notices more information when something is changing than whe it isn't. Sort of like noticing the large animal against the jungle backdrop because it moves, wherein the still animal is much harder to recognize.

So targets with high states of change (entropy) probably carry more information and are therfore easier to produce information on.

There may be a hint in here for healers who use subtle energy approaches to their patient's problems. Maybe (one possibility) what you are doing is interrupting the chaos (change) that is taking place informationally within someones energy system (entropy) by either calming it (like in smoothing out the sea), or by speeding it up (creating more of a chop). We (the patient) may not be "awake" enough to know when outside changes (interpret as the "movement of a threatening animal") are having a derisive effect on our sense of well being. Hence...dis...ease. Just a thought. :)

regards,

Joe

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


snip-- > Btw, per an earlier comment you made, Lyn should be available (far as > I know) for more training in just a few months at the most, if you > can hang in there. -- PJ

We are definitely hanging in there; it's too late to turn back now, as the ol' song says.... We are hoping that Lyn & Linda find the perfect spot to set up a school, and that it will be nearby. Meanwhile, we're "rev'ving" our engines...

Lori

-------
Moderator's Note: Then on every practice target you do, before you finish the target or while doing your summary, ask yourself what 'purpose' this target might have. What it might be used for, or why it was created or happened. Ask yourself what conceptual qualities the target might have. See what you get, before you end your session. That's the kind of stuff that's going to come up in your intermediate training, so if you're ready to move on, don't hold yourself back, see what you get along those lines. Then when you get training, you'll be accustomed to tuning into that kind of data, and it ought to go very well. Good luck! -- PJ


>I would be keen to know the stages of maturation from Ingo's intially >"popping out" to see the lady in her orange coat in the snow, to the fully >developed CRV methodology, as used today. The stepping stones of development, >as it were.

MaryD


Hi Mary and everyone,

I am not sure I understand the question, but I wil answer what I understood. I do not believe Ingo, himself, started RVing at stage 1 and then moved through Stage 6 or 7. He is a natural and just started RVing and then improved through practice, intellect, and experience. When he and Hal Puthoff were trying to develop a package on RV training they could sell to the military, Ingo looked at the way he RVed. He then took what was trainable from his style, broke it into steps and BINGO he had his package. But he went much further. He developed a theory for how RV worked. This included a new (at least for me) view of the universe and readings from literally hundreds of experts in many fields. He spent days if not weeks drilling his students on this RV theory.

As smart as Ingo is, he was never able to make the intellectual breakthrough Gene and I did and realize that RV works by magic. If he had he would have saved himself hundreds of hours of research.

For newcomers who are struggling with Stage 1, take heart. Ingo says Stage 1 is the hardest. It will get easier.

Enjoy the journey Do not take life or yourself too seriously.

and of course,

May the Force be with you,

Liam

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


The subject is letting go AOLs. Basically I can't. Apart from driving me crackers, its messing me up, big time. I'm like a dog with a bone. I won't let it go. Even recognising it and acknowledging it, and writing it down doesn't help. Even when I know it NOT a tree. Its a TREE. Its definitely a TREE! Then I begin to make what I get fit my "tree". And I can see me doing it. But can I stop. Nooooo. This is another of the many stumbling blocks I am sure I will encounter. As present however, it feels like an impenetrable wall, preventing me moving foreward. So, once again, I am asking your advice.

BTW, I can say in total honesty that the last month of my life has been the most exciting and rewarding, in over 15 years. More than 75% of which is due to all of you. Thankyou sincerely, from the bottom of my heart.

MaryD.

---------
Moderator's Note: Mary, I can only give you advice based on my own problem with that. Early on, for reasons beyond me, I went through this phase where I decided EVERY target was -- I am serious -- a boat. I don't give a rip what it was, what the descriptors or gestalt was, my mind said, "IT'S A BOAT!" I vented. I wrote it down, said it, dropped my pen, picked it up and resumed describing the boat. On one hand, it was rather amusing to see that if you ignored that, my descriptives of targets were still accurate. But my mind found a way to make each one into a boat. I was getting desperate. So I called Lyn and told him about this problem. Apparently he'd heard weirder since he didn't laugh. (Either that or that intell training helps him keep a straight face in situations such as this.) He said, "OK. Describe the boat." I said "No, no you don't get it, it ISN'T a boat, I know on one hand it's not, I just can't shake it." He says, "Describe the boat. Fine. If it has to be a boat for you, accept that it's a boat, and just tell yourself that you are going to allow yourself to describe it, and you will allow it to look however it wants to look." I found that when I said, "OK, it's a boat. Let's describe the boat." it helped me kind of let go of the monster assumption hanging over me, and I could kind of put aside what it was in order to describe it. And after some point, it ceased to be a boat. At some point my perceptions of the target made it clear to my mind it was not a boat. It "broke" the cycle and I had no boats again. :-) (Some instructor is going to give me a boat target now, I just KNOW it....) I can't explain it. Don't know if it's the same thing. But that approach might work for you. Good luck, and let us know! -- PJ


MaryD was talking the other day about how she couldn't let go of some AOLs. In response, PJ discussed a technique Lyn had used with her in which he had her describe her "boat" AOL. She told how did so and in the process found that there were other percepts involved ("it ceased to be a boat"). That sounded to me rather similar to one of the Stage 5 analytic techniques Paul teaches in his Advanced Course. No doubt Lyn was using with PJ a bit of the same kind of thing that he probably teaches in a similar course, as I think it came from Ingo as part of the CRV method.

I don't want to get into a lot of detail on Paul's technique, as it requires some background and training for effective use (you can take the course for that <G>). Essentially the notion is that every complex percept (even an AOL) seems to be made up of a combination of other percepts, many if not most of which are valid data themselves. If we can begin to "describe the boat", i.e., find out what underlies the percept we had of "boat", we may find that there is indeed valid data that has nothing inherently to do with boats. Just as any or all of the terms "large-white-wide-old-smelly-smooth-motored-passenger/cargo-carrying-(or recreational)-vehicle in proximity to water" have nothing inherently do do with "boat". (could be a beat-up jeep with dogs and fishing/camping gear inside sitting next to a river) Goes back to the basic rule of "describe don't name", in other words get the data. In psychology, a similar technique is called "word association" or something like that (been a while for me since my last psychology course <BG>).

Definitely seems to be something worth playing with if we get stuck in our AOLs.

Cheers,

GeneT


Hiya Gene.

Good point. There is a brief variation on Stage 5 that is often used for breaking out the data that created an AOL -- as you described very well.

The mention I made of the 'boat' session was not really the phase 5 tool I learned for AOLs though.

For Viewbies: the main difference between Phase 5 itself and "Phase 5'ing an AOL" is that Stage/Phase 5 on its own is a matter of breaking out all the data that *could* (this is analysis, not remote viewing) "emanate from" the data (valid data) you have already obtained. (That's the first step; it's a matrix phase, so there's a lot more to it.)

When you apply the P5 tool to an AOL, there are two main differences: 1) You're not doing an entire matrix phase, you're just doing a quick routine; and 2) rather than listing analytically what data could be part of your valid data (as the first step), instead, you open up to obtaining the 'prior emanations' to the AOL -- that being the data that "caused you to name the AOL:" -- or more simply, you can ask yourself, "in one word or phrase, what does that AOL mean to me?"

This is not really the same as continuing on in a session to 'describe the AOL,' as I did with the boat, and it's quite different from doing a regular Stage 5 on an AOL (which would probably only generate another 30 AOL's to deal with).

(As a side note, I have heard lately of an idea an instructor in the RV field [not on this list] has, where data in later stages is expected to conform to data in earlier stages. The logic of describing anything, such as an AOL, until you find out what it really is obviously could not work within that mindset. In fact, the logic behind the whole CRV process, of venting/recording perceptions, contradicts it. The way it often works is that if a piece of data is wrong, you probably won't see it again in the session; if it's right, you probably will. Half of learning to let go of AOL is because you tell yourself, "Ok, whatever -- if it's valid it'll come back." Swann's CRV was designed to bring the Viewer into ever-closer contact with the target. Every phase/stage you basically have a 'better grip' (one hopes) than you did during the one before. As a result, you can get lots of data in the late stages that contradicts some early stage data -- because now that you're in better target contact, you're getting impressions a little more clearly. If one were to force late-stage data to agree with early-stage data, there just wouldn't really be any point to doing the session past the early phases at all.)

Back to the point of breaking out AOL's:

An example I think I gave earlier was of a session where I was having a hard time shaking the AOL of "fountain." I was pretty sure it was NOT a fountain, yet the 'analytical overlay' was so strong on that, that my data was beginning to be filtered by that. When I was asked what "fountain" meant to me (as in, what is the most prominant thing I associate with that word?), I basically came up with "freeflowing water." The target turned out to be river rapids. Once I was able to focus on that instead (even though I _had_ already in the session defined the water in every possible way), I was able to let go of the fountain-AOL and get on with things.

So, one tool is attempting to find 'what impressions came right before I got the AOL,' like "what led up to this analytic assumption?", and another way is attempting to find 'what to me is the strongest feature of this AOL,' which may be the reason your mind is giving you that AOL, because it's trying to get a point across to you, by using something familiar to you.

(My favorite tidbit from that session: describing a 'bulky biological that is larger than a dog and smaller than a horse [a hard way of saying a human I guess <g>], I said there was "segmented color." Turns out these people were wearing bright yellow lifejackets with two lines of black fasteners going around them, so it literally WAS "segmented color," like a honeybee. I like those offbeat impressions more than all the normal ones, personally...)

PJ


MaryD wrote: >The subject is letting go AOLs. Basically I can't. >(big snip).....it feels like an impenetrable wall, >preventing me moving foreward. So, once again, I am asking your >advice.

Dear Mary, I read your email and was about to write a suggestion, but found that PJ had already hit the nail on the head. When you can't get rid of an AOL, accept it. If it wants to be in control, let it. Fighting it only gives it more power over you. Then, if your AOL is that what you just perceived is a tree, say, "OK, but how would I describe this tree?" Then, like PJ said, allow it to be ANY kind of tree imaginable (or even unimaginable). Who knows? Maybe some creative person will slip you a target which is/isn't a tree. For example, we were driving the other day, and I saw a christmas tree made of deer antlers. I wanted to stop and get it as one of the targets from my trip, but we couldn't stop - so it isn't one of the targets!!!. Having AOL'd it as a tree, you would only get important information about it by describing the tree (and not requiring the perceptions to fit the "tree" AOL.)

In like manner, some (probably most) AOL's are symbolic in nature, either in part or in whole. You can also ask yourself, "OK, my mind is giving me a tree. What does a tree mean to me?" Then go on to write down, "living", "growing", "branched", etc. But then, don't hang on to it and start analyzing things. Just write down the first 2 or 3 things a tree means to you, and then go on to start getting other target impressions. In this way, you haven't beat the AOL, just bypassed it and continued on.

Lyn

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


Lyn Buchanan wrote a reply which contained the following quote: "the fact is that there were VERY few times in the unit when practice targets were not known to the monitor during the session. In fact, it was usually the monitor who selected the target from the safe, anyway, and it wasn't done by a random grab, but by going through the targets looking for one which would give the viewer practice in his/her weaknesses..."

Naughty Naughty Lyn... As a monitor I can tell you this was not REPEAT not true. Lyn functioned as a viewer in the unit and probably believed the monitor knew more than we knew... In fact, we given targets by the ops officers in terms of coordinates only - sometimes we received a closed envelope with instructions not to open until after the session... all sessions were test for the viewers as well as the monitors... It was most definately a rarity NOT A NORM for a monitor to have any knowledge of the target.. Skip and Fern saw to that... REMEMBER LYN!?!?! Regards...Gene...

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

----------
Moderator's Note: Now, now, boys! <holding them at arm's length> Keep in mind Gene you did predominantly ERV and Lyn CRV, from comments from both of you. From talking with Lyn over time I'd say what he remembers (painfully) is Ed D. Anyway, if there is a question brought up by Lyn's response, for me, it is mostly, "Does this indicate that the monitor should not be the tasker?" (In direct teaching that's one thing; in ongoing practice sessions that's another.) Seems clear to me...

Paul also does practice targets with the monitor non-blind, and even arranges for feedback through the session (even in mailed targets). All my attempts to convince students (of either instructor) they should work practice targets blind have failed, since far as they're concerned, frontloaded is how the teacher does it. I quit trying to convince people this was a good thing since it seems to be at odds with what is taught. I kinda see this as damaging to monitor skills -- when you don't know the target, you REALLY have to WATCH the Viewer -- but I am not experienced in this so what do I know.

I guess what I'm saying is, this is both a theory and a practice difference. Theory and formal practice would say, it must be double blind. Yet casual practice as done by most modern students is not -- not in training, and not outside class. Ingo didn't work blind, so the RV Protocol insistence on that almost seems to be at odds with the methods (not that the protocol vs. methods dilemma is new).

It kinda seems like, working non-blind could train a person to 'read the monitor' as much as train them to 'sheer RV psi.' But then, probably only documented lab studies would have an answer to that, or to whether it would affect a Viewer to do it that way. In any case, Lyn isn't saying anything I haven't heard before, nor is his approach any different than Paul's in that particular category, which is no different than Ingo's. So, again with that eternal debate....

PJ


Now and then I view one of the CRV targets Mike or others put on a bulletin board. (Hey, Mike, I appreciate those!) Actually, my attraction to those is that they're guaranteed verfiable.

I did one of these recently which happened to be a "structure" -- a pretty grand structure, actually. No monitor, of course, but I gave myself a level 1 movement exercise. It was the generic SRV "From the centre of the target, something should be perceivable." This results in a new sketch. My first P3 sketch was a pretty close representation of the target. After the movement, I did another P3 and was surprised at my subsequent sketch. It was as if I had a telephoto lense which had zoomed me into the precise centre of the actual photograph of the target. The new sketch was surpisingly accurate as well. However, the precise centre of the photo zooms in on a pretty mundane aspect of the target.

It was as if my subconscious were taking the instruction literally (i.e., look at the centre of this scene). How often do viewers find this happens?

I also wondered if I was viewing the feedback (photo) instead of the target. Any way to tell when you are or aren't?

BTW, Lyn, I appreciated your long post on monitoring. The differences between you and E. and C. were very interesting.

And Liam, I never thought of myself as too much of a gentleman. However, I'm a former altar boy and a lapsed catholic who hasn't completely lapsed in being a "good boy". Maybe I could learn something from you.

Rick S


END ARCHIVE 52
November 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.