firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 062
.


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 sixty-second archive.

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


November 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 62

Hi All, I am reposting a couple of Qs, I hope you don't mind.

Topic One. Biologicals

With biological targets are you supposed to describe them or be them?

And if the answer is the first, how do I stop automatically doing the second?

With an animal, are you targeting that specific creature or the species?

Is it more difficult to disconnect from a living creature than a place?

Can you be a plant?

Topic 2 Range of Targets

Would someone please explain the difference between beginners, intermediate and advanced targets, giving examples of each.

How does the beginner know when to move on to the next level.

Thanks in anticipation.

MaryD.

---------
Moderator's Note: Great questions, Mary. Despite all the talking we did in response to these the first time, I'm realizing that we never really answered them! So I'm glad you re-asked them. Hope you don't mind I reformatted your message. -- PJ


>But when it comes to people >working on their own, as some people must do, I don't care how it >looks on paper. If the person is learning about what's going on >inside them and can do a decent job getting data, and *works within >the RV protocol,* they're remote viewing. Whose methods they use, or >whether they're chanting in Enochian for the occasion while looking >in a black mirror, seems kind of beside the point to me lately.

Hi PJ, Skye, MaryD, and all the ships at sea;

In an earlier post I talked about the disadvantages of being a natural psychic (maybe experienced psychic is a better term) in learning RV. We, unnaturals, use the structure as a formula. With this formula anybody can be a CRVer. We can use the formula like a map to get to where we want to go. If we get lost we check the formula and see where we went wrong. I am sure there are people who can solve an algebra problem for two unknowns in their head. The rest of us use the formula for quadratic equations. If the person who can solve it in their head is wrong they have no way of knowing where they went wrong and no way of getting the correct answer. We unnaturals just plug the numbers into the formula, work it through step by step and we can see where we made the mistake. Boring but accurate.

IMO, naturals must put some structure on the way they work. It does not need to be the CRV structure, although in my experience this works very well for them. (I should add that my experience is very limited in this area.) The structure provides a natural progression. i.e. beginning, plot progression, story development, ending. Without the structure it is like having the entire movie "Gone With the Wind" dropped on you at one time and then trying to figure out why Rhett was so upset.

My wife is IMO a natural. (As I said before a mixed marriage, native american, traditional, natural married to an Irish american, irish catholic, unatural.) After much work, we were able to get her to work stage 1 and then stage 2. There was no way I could get her to work within the confining structure of stage 4, so we had to develop an alternative structure at that point. The bottom line is "she works in a structure." When I moniter her I can tell when she gets out of her structure, and I can bring her back.

For those who decide they do not need to use a structure I want to provide the following advice on what to look out for. At one time in the military project, when we were short of viewers, the General thought he would help by sending us some fairly famous civilian RVers to help on a certain high profile target. It was a target one of our military viewers (I will not use his name without his permission, but He is one of the best ERVers, IMHO, in the world) was working. After the sesions, Skip and myself, compared the civilians (working with no apparent strucuture) with our ERVer, based on what we knew about the target and later when we got more feedback. In no area did the civilians provide any data our ERVer had not already obtained. They did not get the quantity or quality of data our viewer obtained. But the most striking difference was in the amount of erroneous data they provided. IMO this was caused by two things: 1) They insisted on front loading 2) They did not have the concept of AOL (stray cats). They would provide very accurate descriptions, and then would shift to the left side of the brain and judge what those descriptions were. Almost without exception, the judgement portion of their sessions were misleading and wrong. My conclusion: If you want to just do RV with no restraints, despite PJs' and others warnings, then avoid front loading and be aware of AOLs and stray cats.

Whatever anyone decides to do you should enjoy what you are doing. RV is a LOT of work. It is time consuming and it can be frustrating at times. But it should be fun also. Do not get so wraped up with all the details that you miss out on the joy and excitement.

Best wishes to all

PJ the outbound feedback is coming

Slainte

May the force be with you.

Liam

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


>(b) work very > hard just like you're doing for quite some time, and then come out > to visit here for a few months -- we talked about that privately-- > and take the formal CRV training at that time, but after you've > accomplished enough on your own that you'll be able to go through > the classes (normally spaced out by months) fairly quickly.

Mary, PJ's going to take a lot of flak for that comment. There are some who would argue that practicing on your own without structure might generate some bad habits. It is a little ass-backward. Probably more common is for people to learn the structure in the beginning and then jetison it later when they've adapted it to their own abilities.

I would suggest that someone with obvious talent (like yourself <g>), would do better to get over to the States ASAP, make arrangements to learn the Beginner and Intermediate level on the same trip...if you suck up to some people enough they'll let you do that, I suspect...and it sounds like you and PJ are already discussing something like that.

Now, a variant on this is the idea that you find enough RV training prospects in the UK that you can fly a trainer in. Seems that this should be pretty easy. That will save you on airfare (which you can use to get private Intermediate training if need be).

Not that we wouldn't like to have you visit here, but you might prefer to stay home. (If you want a place to stay in CA, you've got one.);-)

> There is simply a ton of RV-related information that anybody truly > serious ought to familiarize themselves with, much of which would be > highly relevant to training or to running a team for intell > collection purposes. Much of that can be researched in libraries, > online, and through individuals. Most of it relates to work done, > and discoveries made, in the science lab, and a lot of this stuff is > old news to scientists but still waiting to be "discovered or > invented" by most people working in the psi fields including RV.

You can do all this anywhere, although I warn you that PJ gets off on this stuff more than most of us do. ;-)

You will need to learn tasking and analysis, too, and that would probably have to wait until after you did the initial training. But if you continue "recruiting" students in the UK, you can just bring the trainer back the next year or so and get them to train in this while they're there.

Skye


Hiya Skye,

<<Mary, PJ's going to take a lot of flak for that comment.

Sorry -- you'll have to get in line. You are number 1,529. Please be seated.

>>There are some who would argue that practicing on your own without structure might generate some bad habits.

There was a time when I myself said this as The Gospel of CRV. (I learned my bible verses well in Sunday School, too.) But I've come to believe that viewing one's own process with suspicion and/or favoring someone else's methods as superior is itself a bad habit. (I'm a heretic.) It may often be correct. People will never know unless they work on their own a little first. I think starting from the point of view of validating the individual's talent is a good idea.

If the person is clueless that's one thing, but there are two major caveats to my normal CRV-emphasis: (1) the person is functional psychically, there is no reason to squish them into a mold if they're doing fine on their own; or (2) the person is never going to be able to afford CRV training unless it's free and/or it'll be eons before they get it, one may as well focus them on their own ability... rather than telling them they need to wait for, or invest in, or won't be competent until, they've learned CRV.

I think there is a growing tendency to interest in form before function. This is only aggravated by the fact that the methods are for sale and have whole exclusive clubs, terms, etc. I do support CRV, it is tremendously useful. But when it comes to people working on their own, as some people must do, I don't care how it looks on paper. If the person is learning about what's going on inside them and can do a decent job getting data, and *works within the RV protocol,* they're remote viewing. Whose methods they use, or whether they're chanting in Enochian for the occasion while looking in a black mirror, seems kind of beside the point to me lately.

I made this list so the public could talk with the intell Viewers (who do more than CRV themselves). I don't want to have to tell people, sorry, the most important thing is spending thousands of dollars and training and a few more to fly all the way to America to get it. I know there is plenty a person can do on their own or with other, say mystical or shamanic techniques, that can still be used within proper RV protocol and can still benefit from CRV communication and analysis and so on.

I don't mean to lecture, I'm sorry. I think I just felt a need to get that off my chest or something. Maybe a little I'm trying to teach myself, here.

>>> Most of it relates to work done, > and discoveries made, in the science lab,
<<You can do all this anywhere, although I warn you that PJ gets off on this stuff more than most of us do. ;-)

I'm guilty! :-) I don't know why, but I find the research of it as equally interesting as every other aspect of it. Everything learned in the lab no matter how small opens up this vast new canvas for theorizing and exploring. Opens up a whole new way of THINKING about something, a different frame of reference, one step closer to figuring things out. Every time a new way of wrapping my mind around something comes along I get excited. Research -- I dig it!

>>You will need to learn tasking and analysis, too, and that would probably have to wait until after you did the initial training.

Some of that she can learn just by talking to the Viewers on the list and asking questions. Unlike detailed methodologies I don't think there are any big privacy labels on the various non-Viewer aspects of RV project management. I certainly hope not, since that kind of information pertains to all psi functioning, not just RV....

PJ


>You can do all this anywhere, although I warn you that PJ gets off >on this stuff more than most of us do. ;-)

Commenting again from my pillar in the desert, it seems to me that PJ's function in this swamp is to understand and be able to _explain/describe_ what's happening. Each of you practicing this skill (with whatever degree of competence) is exploring complex and very unfamiliar territory with great interest. Each of you sees "trees" in the "forest" out there -- not all the same trees, for sure, but all part of the same (enormous) forest. PJ's trying to see the forest itself, I think, although the idea may not have occurred to her yet.

Of course, every analogy is inaccurate, every metaphor misleading.

Tom C

"This life is a test. It is only a test. If this had been an actual life, you would have received further instructions on where to go and what to do. Remember: this life is only a test." (Anon.)

After composing my sermon above, I read PJ's later post, including:

>I don't know why, but I find the research of it as equally >interesting as every other aspect of it. Everything learned in the >lab no matter how small opens up this vast new canvas for >theorizing and exploring. Opens up a whole new way of THINKING >about something, a different frame of reference, one step closer to >figuring things out. Every time a new way of wrapping my mind >around something comes along I get excited.

OK, I was partly wrong. It has occurred to her.

TC


> There was a time when I myself said this as The Gospel of CRV. (I > learned my bible verses well in Sunday School, too.) But I've come > to believe that viewing one's own process with suspicion and/or > favoring someone else's methods as superior is itself a bad habit.

Now, now, now...just because something has become a cause celebe (however you spell that), doesn't mean it always has to be a kneejerk reaction. ;-)

> (I'm a heretic.) It may often be correct. People will never know > unless they work on their own a little first. I think starting from > the point of view of validating the individual's talent is a good > idea.

But we've already validated Mary's talent. ;-) That's not an issue. (Isn't the Internet wonderful?)

> If the person is clueless that's one thing, but there are two major > caveats to my normal CRV-emphasis: (1) the person is functional > psychically, there is no reason to squish them into a mold if > they're doing fine on their own;

Just got an email from a woman who basically wanted to know what the accepted career path was for a parapsychologist/viewer and what were the prospects for making this a happening future. (I was polite and tried not to laugh in her face <g>.)

I told her that in my view, if she was extremely talented AND was very self-disciplined, then she might get away with working on her own, without training. The thing is, that describes very few people. Otherwise, I suggested that a structured approach and training were probably recommended.

I mean, it takes a lot of self-discipline to practice, even when you've got a teacher and fellow students and whatnot. From the way Joe has written, he's spent some SERIOUS effort and developed an extremely disciplined approach to analysing his sessions and figuring out exactly what works for him. (There's also the decades of experience he's accrued.) This isn't the way for a lot of folks.

> or (2) the person is never going to be able > to afford CRV training unless it's free and/or it'll be eons before > they get it, one may as well focus them on their own ability... > rather than telling them they need to wait for, or invest in, or > won't be competent until, they've learned CRV.

Y'know...I'm a sucker for men with boyish good looks (and often the personality to match), homeless kittys (I won't say Stray Cats <g>), and people that have a real desire for something (especially if they're men with boyish good looks <g>). If someone approached me the right way, it would take very little time before I found myself offering to train them in CRV. I might not be as good a teacher as Lyn is, but I could do a passable job. And for many, especially the poverty stricken ones, this would be a very good option. And I suspect I'm not the only CRVer out there who would respond similarly. Training doesn't have to cost thousands of dollars and as more and more students are trained, there will be more of us to hit up for freebie training.

> I think there is a growing tendency to interest in form before > function.

See my comments above. ;-) Sometimes form allows or facilitates the content/function.

> Research -- I dig it!

I'm probably one of the few psych majors who managed to get a degree without taking statistics. I was very crafty because I'd been warned early-on: Never take Latin or statistics! So...whatever turns you on.

I like hearing about the research, really enjoyed Dean's book, but my attitude is: Just give me the bottom line. (There's this thing called LST and there's a hot zone and a dead zone and you can find out on the Internet when they are. Thank you very much -- That's about my speed.)

When I really want to get bogged down in minutiae, I've had plenty of experience in the business world and if I need a new fix I can always head over to the UFO areas of the Internet and argue about all sorts of picky stupid issues that never resolve anything! ;-)

> >>You will need to learn tasking and analysis, too, and that would > >>probably have to wait until after you did the initial training. > > Some of that she can learn just by talking to the Viewers on the > list and asking questions. Unlike detailed methodologies I don't > think there are any big privacy labels on the various non-Viewer > aspects of RV project management. I certainly hope not, since that > kind of information pertains to all psi functioning, not just RV....

Yeah, but in my experience so far it's all been kind of hodge-podge. I'd love for someone to put together a cohesive, coherent class on tasking/analysis. But then, that's very much in keeping with my give me the bottom line attitude.

It's not that I mind putting hard work into things -- anyone who knows me is well aware of that. As I get older I just resent having to reinvent wheels when I know the blueprints are already around here somewhere. ;-)

Skye

-----------
Moderator's Note: I agree about the wheel thing. And I agree that discipline and documentation and so on are necessary. But you don't have to have methods training to develop those. I mean, the whole subculture of ceremonial magicians for example is highly scientific in nature in both of those elements; clearly people can be that way on their own. Joe's book MIND TREK covers just about all the necessary elements of protocol, targets and so on that someone working on their own with RV might need to know to begin. I figure, anybody who HAS the money and time and interest will get psi methods training, like CRV. If they don't, though, I feel there are other options for exploring one's own talents that are quite functional. RV is a new term/approach, and CRV is its own method, but it's not as if psi ability were invented 25 years ago.... the list is for RV, so I emphasize that of course, but I don't want to make it sound like someone can't be competent if they don't do it my way. (Imagine. ME, open minded. What a concept.) -- PJ


> We can use the formula like a map to get to here we want to go. If > we get lost we check the formula and see where we went wrong. /snip/ > IMO, naturals must put some structure on the way they work. > It does not need to be the CRV structure, although in my experience > this works very well for them.

For what it¦s worth, the following suggestion by Geoffrey Ashe, in his *The Finger & The Moon,* (a novel about certain psi manifestations published in 1973) seems to have some bearing on this discussion, especially since Liam (IMO correctly) characterizes RV as magic:

*The technique is not the secret. The spelt-out drill, the conscious acts which a magician performs, don¦t account for whatever success he has. They focus his mind on the subject, yes. Or perhaps they just keep it occupied. They may do this better, for him, than anything else would, and he may be right to use them. But the real inner process, of character-reading or prediction or whatever, is ... other.*

I¦m reminded of the intramural arguments in the psychotherapeutic community about what¦s the best therapy - all research indicates that they¦re all pretty much equivalent in effectiveness. In psychotherapy it boils down to, if you believe it works, it works...

Regards to all

Bill


Re: "Deep Mind Probes" and Liam's outbounder offers: >Then why oh why, has Liam this week actively invited the list to do >it! Are we talking different schools of thought here? She asks >innocently, strolling into the minefield.

Hi Mary and al;

PJ's comments which I deleted were pretty much on the mark. But I try to keep an open mind. If this is something new, I would like to know it. My gut feeling is it is probably only the EI block of S/P 4. I was just giving anyone who believes in the deep mind probe permisson to try me. It was not really a dare or a challenge, just an opportunity for some unoffical scientific research. If anyone who tried it, now is considering how to keep the wee folk happy, wants to smoke a pipe, and thinks that 23 pints of Guinness for dinner is a good idea, please get out of my mind.

Best wishes Slainte

may the force be with you

Liam

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


END ARCHIVE 62
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.