[VWR]-Digest: V2 #76
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 15:49:59 EST
From: Blarosa830 <Blarosa830@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] AOL in ERV
I am a "newbie," but
very grateful to be on your e-mail list. I am
learning so much just by reading the postings. I truly appreciate
the input of the "old-timers," and enjoy the bantering
back and
forth. Thankyou PJ for this site. I have been reading and
studying,
and hopefully will be attending one of Pru's Workshops when she
is
able to head this way (Long Island). In the meantime, I find many
quality postings from many people. To All: Thankyou, and keep up
the good work!
Best Wishes, Betty
- ----------------
Moderator's Note: Once again my sites or corr. groups is making
somebody ELSE money, I see. I think RV instructors oughtta start
sending me a % or something..... :-) -- PJ
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 09:40:12
-0400
From: Prudence Calabrese <prudence@largeruniverse.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #71
>Thanks Pru for all your
efforts on the VWR Digest's part. Your
>support for PJ while she was in transit was commendable. Now
stick
>around and continue to share your comments.
Thanks Joe, and everyone else who sent thanks my way. I promise
to
stick around and contribute to the list! I learned an incredible
amount from interacting with all of you - some RV stuff, but
mostly a
bunch about human nature and conflict resolution! (Thinking about
the
drugs in rv thread now...)
Thanks again to one and all for making it * easy * to moderate
the
list.
Peace,
Pru
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prudence Calabrese
Director
TransDimensional Systems
http://www.largeruniverse.com
tel: (770) 814-9410
fax: (770) 497-1129
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 14:31:22 EST
From: Curran2106 <Curran2106@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] AOL in ERV
In a message dated 98-04-04
12:49:10 EST, you write:
<< Moderator's Note: Intell soldiers with a personable
exterior....
you guys are all barbarians in disguise. ;-) <Ducking> --
PJ >>
What can I say except that Liam is correct in affirming what I
already said...it's his way....no doubt also taking full credit
for
my insightful comments at the same time...Liam, very slight
defense,
was fairly good at avoiding the pitfalls of AOL and its evil
uncle
AOL-Drive but it was not without long hours of practice...HE once
reported a very tall building of slight importance surrounded by
a
ring of trees bending under the heavy winds .. The target was the
Washington Memorial - yes a building of little importance but the
ring of trees are in fact a ring of US Flags on tall flag
poles...The
more you practice the more you will recognize and avoid AOL in
ERV...
As to his comments directed at Pru concerning my charm and
personal
attractiveness as being nothing but a sham for my well conealed
Irish
savagery...well yes ... he is right to an extent...I have to hold
back in my
strong desires to do as most Irish warriors would do in similar
situations and
ravish the comely lass we know as Prudence...it comes with
discipline..well
practiced and well polished..it is part of my assiiliation into
non-Irish
society...in the case of Liam, he has not accomplished this
assimiliation
fully and is often an embarrassment to all those around
him...Sandy, his
lovely Amerind Bride has a saying about Liam..."He is the
type of man you can
take anywhere...........once!"
Warmest regards
Gene "Kincaid"...
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 00:44:53
-0500
From: "R. Michael O'Bannon" <mob@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] Psychotropic Drugs
At 01:27 AM 4/3/98 -0800, you
wrote:
>BTW, your post was great. I agree with yours and David's
[Pursglove]
>position regarding drugs. Shamanistic "versions" of
remote viewing
>are, in an obviously different context, just as legit as our
own.
>They would look at our gray rooms, our coffee machines, a
viewer
>stepping out for a smoke, etc. as anthropological oddities .
. . and
>they would be correct.
I can assure you that they DO find our way of remote viewing very
odd.
We also have to keep in mind that their system has been in use
for 5000+
years by multiple cultures. That's a rather strong vote of
confidence.
They certainly have had many more clients and sessions than
remote
viewers in traditional Western culture. So if you even if you
take the
very traditional Western approach of adding up the numbers, the
Shamanic
systems get a solid vote.
R. Michael O'Bannon, Ph.D.
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 09:36:07
-0500
From: David Pursglove <74434.351@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] Psychotropic D
>Shamanistic
"versions" of remote viewing are, in an obviously
>different context, just as legit as our own. They would look
at our
>gray rooms, our coffee machines, a viewer stepping out for a
smoke,
>etc. as anthropological oddities . . . and they would be
correct.
>Rick Lucertini
- --------------
>Moderator's Note:
>RV vs. Good Drugs.... mmmmmnnnn.... RV is cheaper. :-) --
PJ<
Mmmmmnnn, yrself, PJ. <g>
But now that you've put your moderating
oar into this one (which was putatively over before you got
back), I
can't resist a retort. <sound of one hand rubbing
together>:
Yeah, cheaper maybe (except for
the training [!] and unless you know
the right people), but hell, you get what you pay for. With RV
you
can spend long and not too enticing hours detailing out equipment
on
a construction site in Birmingham, AL or maybe a tablespoon full
of
green cough medicine from an ad in *Ladies Home Journal*. With
just
a halfway decent psychoactive you can get a hell of a lot better
pix
than that. (Unless you're one of those SRVers that can go see
God. .
.but God in his *kitchen*, fer cryeye. . ?? No self-respecting
psychoactive would portray The Absolute in such a reductionist,
anthropomorphized, twiddle-de-dee fashion. Since when does God
need
to eat?) };-\
- -=d=-
- -------------
Moderator's Note: Aaaack! Irreverent blasphemer! A heathen in our
midst! D your lack of awe about all this is refreshing.... -- PJ
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 09:36:08
-0500
From: David Pursglove <74434.351@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #71
PJ Gaenir wrote:
> At this point there is quite a bit of (empirical, of course)
evidence
>documented by investigators in the field, particularly in the
case
>of children remembering great detail about lives spent (as
adults)
>in cultures dramatically different from their own. Some of
the
>accounts would knock your socks off. I don't have references
off
>the top of my head. Maybe David Pursglove knows of some.
The very best work is by Ian Stevenson at UVA. Incredibly
persuasive! with kids, mostly not in the USA, several in India,
if I
recall right. ALso, if memory serves, he found only about 13
cases
out of hundreds investigated that really cut the mustard. And
they
*really* do. (And no, PJ, Ian didn't throw his career into the
dirt.
He's a very respected fellow, though, yes, I think the
mainstreamers
will make sure not to ref his work, and CSICOP long ago turned
his
picture to the wall and simply won't discuss him or his results.
In
my book, this last is mute testimonial to the power of his data.
Got
those bozos on the run, it did.)
- -=d=-
- -------------
Moderator's Note: In other words, nobody in the
"official" field will
have him any more -- in other words, he threw his academically
approved career into the dirt. :-) But he got a better and more
interesting one as a result. -- PJ
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 00:48:08
-1000
From: Yaana Allen <yaana@aloha.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #73
PJ:
> Interesting. To ramble a bit (this subject interests me)....
Yaana: Me too, like trecking through uncharted territory : )
> 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."
hummmmm... "seen it demonstarted" I think that is a bit
beyond our
ability at the time, we are still dealing with observations and
duplication of phenomena, demonstrations seem to still come from
personal experiences and are subject ot AOL. I started in
Esoteric
Psycology with a spiritual model, Physical, Emotional, Mental,
and
Intutive.. each a dynamic aspect of being.. and the cycles of
energy
moving from inertia through activity to seek balance, also that
all
thought is dynamic and have have instanious effect on physical
reality . The model works well on may levels but is rife with
mysticism and spiritual jargon which obscures the simplicity of
function and until or unless the concepts are experineced they
are
just another set of beliefs requiring faith. The new model Ihave
learned studing RV with Rainfall is scientific, wave forms, band
widths, frequency resonance, electromagnetic wave theory, this is
a
very clean model which makes training the mind much easier,
because
it steps outside of the common ego triggers which accompany,
religion, phlosophy, and psycology. It is great to see that in
the
last decade that quantum physics and other aspects of science now
have formulas which prove the ancient spiritual laws, including
one
published in the last few years which porports to prove the
existance of God.
> snip-- because I think the 'sub' is larger
> and more complex than what can easily be described.
I agree whole heartedly, as the new things I am learning merge
with
and sort out the old the sub appears to be the dynamic aspect of
limitless consciousness which responds literally to our every
thought
and intention (sort of like letting the geni out of the bottle,
but
not yet having the wisdom to direct it constructively so we
create
alot of chaos in our ignorance, both in our bodies and in our
worlds). I have come to feel that alot of what people call
guidance
is actually finally letting data in from the sub, part of our own
magnificence we have trouble accepting, I have also experienced
sub-space beings.. but that is another story.
> 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.
Interesting, since RV'ing I have come to experience my sub as
what
some call the higher self, an individulized identiy (me) which
lives
in an enviornment where it is seprate from nothing it chooses to
experience, kind of the all-one concept. it seems a
contradiction, to
be individualized yet not capable of being seperate, sort of like
a
particular frequency or harmonic of a frequency within a wave
form,
seprate but inseprable. it is the inseprability which give it
instant
access to anything knowable.
> 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." snip..
> (Tell most people there are "different levels of
reality" and they'll
> just look at you as if you are very strange. <g>)
Hahaha... yes I know what you mean, I think it is easy to confuse
the
sub-conscious with unconscious, where all things we are not yet
willing to experience are stored.. or is that stuffed.
....snip.. 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.
Yes our ego's are so tricky, having to interpet everything so it
can
feel inportant LOLThere is nothing more humbling than to see your
sked laid out next to the target and there are not excuses. It
sounds as if the theories behind our trainings have been
different..
(what a suprise..LOL) Ihear many people say there is not way to
tell
the difference between accurate data and imgination, but I was
trained in one methd for regression work and have learned a
second in
RV.
> 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.
I think that the sub uses archtyes to try and communicate to us
thorugh our prejudices.To parapharase Rainfall, " RV is a
communication skill, once you begin to develop this skill, your
sub
has been waiting along time to talk to you. " I kind of see
the sub
like someone trying to talk to us, but we either do not listen or
distort everything it says and turn it into something else, we
have
all known people like this, we generally avoid them, but our subs
are
tied to us and can't get a way.. so they just keep tryng to get
us to
wake up.
> 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.
My experience is that the sub communicates in pictures, feelings
and
sensations, the words and lables come from the conscious trying
to
interpet and understand what all the sensory data means.
> 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 is very possible PJ, everything has a counterpart of some
sort.
"As above so below"
> 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.
I agree, this kind of discussion is a stimulating exchange of
ideas
and personal experiences but can we know anything for sure. All
we
have are models which seem to be reasonable based on our
observations
and experiences. What seems to be reasonable for one may seem
like
your a candidate for prozac to another LOL.
Thanks for the thought provoking discussion PJ.
Aloha Yaana
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[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.
End of [VWR]-Digest: V2 #76