[VWR]-Digest: V2 #73


Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 02:43:58 -0000
From: "John Krimes" <aaaaa@ptdprolog.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR] hynogogic state-AOL's?

> From: Rick Lucertini
> Eliminate whatever practices that cause distraction from the task of
remote viewing, and the ability
> for the viewer to concentrate will rise accordingly. This is not simply
a "law of remote viewing",
> but, simply, an underlying principle of how the body works.

Hi Rick and all,

I have to agree. I've been teaching myself an ERV and have problems with
AOL's just as in CRV. When I tried CRV, I only got AOL's( so it seemed).

What I'm getting at is, are there AOL's in ERV?



- ---------
Moderator's Note: John, don't forget to sign your name to your posts
or the archives get a little confusing. :-) Re: Analytical Overlay
("AOL"), there is probably AOL anywhere there is a brain involved,
regardless of what form of psi/rv method one may be using.... -- PJ


Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:13:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Joan Branch <info4u@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #71

Regarding... the explanation by Rick Lucertini in Vancouver, Canada: It
makes the kind of sense I like to read about; that is, get rid of all that
hinders one's progress and get on with it!

I want to welcome back PJ and hope she and her little one feel better soon.
Fresh oranges for everyone!

And I wish to also thank Pru for her ever vigilant monitoring of the group.
There were many excellent, but complicated posts. Her comments helped me
understand more.

Thank you, all, from the Perpetual Student...
Joan in St. Louis

:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
EAT YUMMY COOKIES~LOSE WEIGHT~EAT LUCIOUS COOKIES~GET ENERGY!
GO HERE NOW TO SEE 4 YOURSELF!
http://carolinafinecookies.com/reps/joanbramsch.html
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Best Vitamin for making friends, B-1.
Member: Int. Small Business Consortium (info@isbc.com)
- ------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 08:11:19 -0800
From: "Robert C. Abbott" <rca@worldstar.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #71

Yaana Allen wrote:
> I question this interpretation of the function of the filter. If the
> sub-conscious has access to the matrix, i.e. the electromagnetic
> signatures of every event which has ever occurred, from the blink of
> a gnats eye to the biggest disaster, and the sub-conscious observes
> and experiences without judgment, two way filtration is not relevant.

Yaana,

I disagree. The purpose of the filter is to help us stay somewhat
focused and not overwhelmed. Our conscious mind's awareness of
surroundings and large gross objects, sounds, feels and other inputs
tends to overwhelm the subtle inputs from the subconscious mind. The
subconscious has a huge job to do, with all of the tasks it performs
from keeping our bodies operating, long term memory, processing
information etc. Many times, our judgement of the filters activities is
based on logic and not on its actual effect. There has been a new bit
of research with some forms of autism, where the subject has gone
through some stimulation reduction and found that they seems to do
better. I don't have the reference to the study and it was short termed
and not very well funded. The conclusions, support the concept that the
filter is there and, whether we make a judgement as to whether the
filter is necessary or not..does not negate the fact that it is there
and not just for the subtlies of viewing the matrix.

> It is our conscious minds that pride themselves on their ability to
> judge, add significance to events, and feel that they must understand
> each thing in relativity to another. It is this primary
> consciousness which tends to get overwhelmed.

To this I agree, as written.

> I have done Past Life Therapy for 20 years, the reason our sub does
> not readily allow us to experience all of our past lives, is this
> propensity to judge.

I gree to this Yaana. I too have done years of similar
experimentation. However, I have yet to be able to state conclusively
that Past Life Therapy is just that Past Lives. I agree with the
concept and believe very strongly in Reincarnation. However, when
conducting experimentation, I have been unable to segregate information
that finely. When I think I am looking at a past life - I am unable to
rule out all other possibilities like Genetic Memory, Reading a Fly-By
(ghost that pops in once in a while), dredging up old current lifetime
memories place in a mozaic of circumstances that gets reported in a
sensible way. Are we just reading predominant patterns that may exist,
as well (The ebb and flow of the matrix). We may be looking at the
Matrix captured events that may not have relavance to our own past, just
one that we can match with at the time.

>I have seen may people reeling from psychic
> readings or spontaneous remembrances of past lives because they now
> had multiple life times of events to either beat up themselves (or
> others) with, or use as justifications for current behavior, none of
> which would occur with a competent therapist, but is a natural... "Oh
> My God.. this must mean........"AOL

I agree that it is a facinating subject. I just have to be careful
that I don't limit or extrapolate my own logic to the process. If we
do, we are then guilty of the very thing that the "New Age" community
tends toward in find logical reasonings. Not always are these
reasonings correct.

Rob


Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 10:50:10 -0500
From: David Pursglove <74434.351@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] List Business

>You are most welcome. I had a blast, to tell the truth. I even enjoyed the
>discussion on drugs! LOL!

Humph! Enjoyment was surely not intended to be on the, er, menu. Dwugs is
sewious bizness. Just ask any 14-year-old who can now no longer look at a
frying egg without flinching.

<BGs> and a thanks from me as well, Pru. Godspeed or godspell, whichever
comes first.

- -=d=-


Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 15:03:46 EST
From: Curran2106 <Curran2106@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] hynogogic state-AOL's?

In a message dated 98-04-02 09:01:29 EST, you write:
<< What I'm getting at is, are there AOL's in ERV?

Most certainly there are AOL's in ERV and after working extensively
in both CRV and ERV as a monitor... I can tell you with some
authority that the evilness of AOL drive happens much quicker and
with more frequency in ERV than in CRV... Gene...


Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 08:19:56 -0700
From: greg <greg@ideamachine.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] Wrinkley targets

MaryD wrote:
> Has anyone a suggestion for attaching pictures printed on glossy paper, eg
> from National Geographic on to card, without ending up with wrinkles. I
> have tried wall paper paste, PVA, without success.

Ya, go here:
http://ngsstore.nationalgeographic.com/store/geo/SCIENCE/LEVEL3/bud/83201C.html
and pay (only) $149 and get every single page, every single photo, every
single word and every single ad of every single issue of national
geographic since the beginning of time on 30 (yes thirty!) CD ROM discs.

I have it and it's awesome.

I've written a cgi script for web access to an application that randomly
selectes targets from my database of over 5000 photos, some of the NGS
collection included.

gk

- -----------
Moderator's Note: WWOW! I'm impressed. -- PJ


Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 10:41:02 -0600
From: Shelia Massey <gnmassey@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR] 2nd UT Skeptic target

Paul H. Smith wrote:

> Target #2 is now closed. Ten people worked the target.
> Now we wait 'til they post the feedback and responses to see how well
> everyone did.

Paul, I think there is a little glitch in the system many may have
overlooked: if you don't submit an analysis of your own session, and
request a Third Party Review they will not consider it one way or
another (the fine print in their "protocols" is significant to the
possible outcome of their "study"):

> At this point the viewers or RV instructors may send a "hit/miss"
> analysis regarding any SS they desire. The analysis must
> contain the Viewer ID number of the individual SS being analyzed.
> Hit/Miss feedback will be provided by the Protocol Manager only for
> those SS where an analysis has already been received by a viewer or
> the viewer's instructor.
>
> Third Party Review: Those Session Summaries that are declared "hits"
> BY THE VIEWER are eligible for for Third Party Review (TPR). The
> viewer simply mentions in their SS analysis that they would like their
> SS to be considered for TPR.

If it's not mentioned, it won't be reviewed (TPR) ...if no one
notices this statement, and everyone simply waits for an overall site
review, there won't be one no matter how good the sessions are:
therefore the "Hall of Hits" and "Near Misses" will = 0.

So everything hinges on the viewers or instructors giving an analysis of
the sessions and requesting a TPR. I missed these details on first
reading of the "protocols".

Shelia

- ------------
Moderator's Note: I guess I fail to see, with 20+ years and thousands
of legitimate RV trials, decades of intelligence work and plenty of
qualified taskers (including those with real cases), why anybody
would want to cater to "skeptic's targets" or that sort of setup. I
have yet to see ONE, even one, self-dubbed "skeptic's" group or
individual with a proper knowledge (or unbiased performance on that
knowledge) of the true dynamics of or expectations for RV.
Targeting, tasking, interpretation and many other things inevitably
have problems and asking a skeptic's group to be unbiased is nothing
short of hilarious. Usually one is providing sincere effort which
will only be used to attempt to discredit the entire subject
regardless of how rational they may seem initially. If people are
looking for "group targets" where they can provide non-public
feedback and only the "hits" are made public I would be glad to
provide such a thing online. -- PJ the skeptical of skeptics


Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 08:41:03 -1000
From: Yaana Allen <yaana@aloha.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #72

>snip... "But when it comes to models of the critical mind (or
>"filter") or other perspectives such as you present, so far, every
>model I have found has actually worked quite well when applied, even
>those that seem to contradict each other. I have to figure this is
>because there is so much to the mind and so many ways to approach
>it. At least, it's the only explanation I have so far. -- PJ"....

Hi PJ, I agree the mind works in many ways, and it has needs to
filter the vast quanity of avilable data for relevance, signifigance,
and sheer manigability. My point is actually since the sub is virtual
librarian to the matrix, innocent of judgment, it has no need to
filter it obediently accesses data on what ever we focus on,
regardless of how much our minds may distort it. It is quite clear
how our minds filter, what does not seem likely, is that given it's
purpose and style of function that the sub filters also. What I have
seen if information is requested and appears to not be provided, it
was not that the sub did not make it available, it was the mind who
was unable, given it's current bias to accept the data, so it
filtered it out. Proof of that is the kind of knowledge and wisdom
that floods in once a person has resolved a false belief, it's like a
flood of data had been building up for some time was finally
released.

Aloha Yaana

- ------------
Moderator's Response:

Aloha Yaana!

Interesting. To ramble a bit (this subject interests me)....

I think in my own case -- though I have far less experience than you
have in these studies -- I have not actually seen the "subconscious"
demonstrated as anything more than what I might call "a model for
how to think about a part of the Self."

It being a specific static "thing" which has any inherent qualities
except the ill-defined "knows more than the conscious mind and takes
things literally" is something I have a hard time feeling comfortably
firm about. I don't generally assign the subconscious specific "does
this / doesn't do that qualities"-- except the overt things I
mentioned in the sentence above-- because I think the 'sub' is larger
and more complex than what can easily be described.

I am fairly comfortable assigning qualities to the so-called
"critical mind" or "filter" that functions as if it is "between" the
conscious and whatever-else-of-us, but not to the "subconscious"
itself. (And that divider is likely just part of everything else,
it's simply that it is a very useful model in theory and practice.)

As for psi and what some call the "matrix," this term itself (and the
Swann theory that is part of it in RV) is useful in RV training but I
don't think I really agree with it as a concept of "how things work"
that is comfortable for me personally. The word apart from the
semantics of that theory might work, though it still sort of implies
"a separate thing over there someone taps into from over here" that
again steps outside the way I conceptualize things. That's just me.

Personally, I sense there is less separation and a lot more overlap
between the "subconscious" and "conscious" than many people from more
classical models might expect.

I also sense that there are many "Aspects of Self" which we relegate
to the term "subconscious" because to us, "it ain't conscious so it
must be subconscious." Sort of like how to most people, everything
that is not a normal-wide-awake-objective-experience measurable
after the fact by a third party with a test tube "must be a dream,"
because they have not learned to define many different states of
consciousness and reality, and our culture says it's one or the other
so people seldom learn to delineate the various shades of gray.
(Tell most people there are "different levels of reality" and they'll
just look at you as if you are very strange. <g>)

An allegory to this in RV is that psi data feels pretty much like
one type of imagination. The processes or parts of the minds used
may be related (who knows). Some imagination in a session you
recognize for what it is. Sometimes you get psi data head-on but
feel like you're probably imagining it. Sometimes you get imagination
but it seems to feel the same as when you thought you were imagining
it but were right on, so you accept it might be accurate and it's
not. Sometimes you KNOW with a deep knowing you're right. But these
different levels of "imagination/perception" are difficult to tell
apart, and in many cases impossible, even for experts. It is
possible that these processes or parts of the mind -- and even the
mere functions of perception vs. creation -- are simply not as
separate as we think, and perhaps that's why there is confusion.

Some people may recognize 'aspects of Self' in other more direct,
segregated ways, such as memories or past lives or as current
"guides," or as angels or demons or aliens, or in extreme cases maybe
even multiple personalities or any other thing. OR, that may be
inaccurate for me to suggest -- those things may exist as something
more-separate from the Self -- my point is merely that I feel there
is a lot more to the Self than most people recognize, and most of it
gets relegated to the term "subconscious," and so trying to put any
real encompassing label on the subconscious is prone to be accurate
(one way or another) yet incomplete.

I think it's even possible, metaphysically, that energy one
accumulates on or in themselves (including spirits, clinging things,
food you eat and so on) may actually BE part of the subconscious
which may be a term merely for the overall conglomerate energy which
makes up "us."

Have you ever seen that razor commercial where this man puts his
face into one of those toy-things, it's like a wall of beads, and
the beads take the shape of his face? I think of the conscious mind
as being sort of like that -- the whole 'Self' including the
so-called "subconscious" is like this big pool, and out of that pool
arises a "face" that presses itself into physical shape. The
water creature in the movie "The Abyss" is another example of what I
mean. And that face probably changes slightly, constantly, we just
don't realize it because we "are" the face consciously, so we are
just "aware of who we are" at any given moment. But in that
allegory, the conscious mind it comes from the same place as
everything else and constantly trades components with the
"subconscious" pool from which it has its source.... which means the
subconscious is also constantly changing.

I think what I'm getting to (to bring this back to RV) is that I
don't assume the subconscious never filters or alters data, or that
it is totally innocent of any form of analysis -- though it may be a
different type or level of it than the conscious mind uses. For
instance I think there are archetypal symbols that the subconscious
recognizes and responds to that the conscious may have no clue about.
In order to recognize anything, there has to be judgement, there has
to be exclusion of alternate potentials -- that is, a form of
analysis.

You ask the subconscious a question about something and it gives you
an answer -- regardless of whether the conscious is supposedly in
abeyance in hypnosis, the fact that the subconscious used words to
describe it, labels and terms, indicates that it is being fairly
judgemental about what is what and is translating all of that into
consciously recognized symbols and terms. It would be pretty
difficult at any point to have the subconscious communicate in such a
way as to be tested WITHOUT having some degree of consciousness
present in the individual.... tough to separate them for measurement.

I think it would be difficult (and require a great deal of well
funded study) to really separate the subconscious and conscious to
the point where one could clearly say it was always the conscious
altering data or interpretation and providing recognition and not the
subconscious (though I agree most of the time this is likely so).

It is also possible that as "Beings" our "subconscious" is just as
frequency-specific as our conscious (though perhaps with a wider
band), and so may have its own filter -- it's just that THAT filter
may be larger than our "conscious" one, so comparatively it seems
like it doesn't have one. That doesn't mean the data it provides
us isn't shaped in some way. It simply may have a wider range of
shapes than our conscious mind is familiar or comfortable with.... it
is a whole pool, and our conscious is a smaller identity (face) drawn
from it.

To get more esoteric, it is possible that in order for something to
be knowledge it has to conform itself in some way anyway. For
instance, zen-merges with inanimate objects tend to "share" some
aspects of the object and the individual between them, providing a
degree of awareness to the object that it likely does not have
outside that merge (a bit of a religious experience for it, expanded
awareness, so to speak), and so in order for one even to become
AWARE of that 'thing', the very process of one's awareness with it
actually alters what seems to be its ISness for that moment.

Becoming aware of knowledge, say a "past life," may actually change
the experience of the remembered life itself during that time of
awareness (or in some cases may literally create the whole life in
the experiential future, although it may seem to be a memory of the
temoporal past -- time being Not, of course). As if you cannot touch
something without effecting it or observe something without
participating. But, I am getting up to my armpits in metaphysics and
semantics here so I am going to back out of that one. :-)

I think what I'm saying here sums up to "I don't really know." I
just can't assume anything about the subconscious. I think that's a
label that has allowed a humongous heap of separate things to be
classified as if it's one thing with one set of characteristics, and
that can be misleading. It's a sort of purity to assume the
"subconscious" is just totally innocent and always right, and who
knows, maybe it's true.

To tie this again to psi, some of Dr. Dean Radin's work on
physiological (precognitive) responses to future events kind of
relates to this, since it uses the "subconscious" (body) rather than
the conscious to perceive and respond to the data. Whether it is
"always" accurate I seriously doubt, but on binary type things I bet
it is a lot more accurate than conscious trials would be. (I am
trying to remember what his book THE CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE says about
this, because I read it, but can't recall at the moment.....)

PJ

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[VWR] Remote Viewing Discussion Group [closed and archived. see firedocs.com/remoteviewing/ home page for new list]
Moderated. Join-approval required. List Owner PJ Gaenir, palyne@sciencehorizon.com
VWR archives are at Firedocs: http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe: This list is now closed. See firedocs home for current list.

Archivist's Note: Good GRIEF! Wind me up and I NEVER shut up.... -- PJ


End of [VWR]-Digest: V2 #73

[VWR] Archives Menu

Top

All contents copyright © 1995-2002 by PJ Gaenir. All rights reserved.