[VWR]-Digest: V2 #86


Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:37:08 -0000
From: "John Krimes" <aaaaa@ptdprolog.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #74

> From: Paul H. Smith
> Most/all of the viewers at Ft. Meade at least tried ERV, so we all
> have some experience in it. I myself may have done a dozen or so such
> sessions. They were not my favorite type of viewing, since (as I've
> said before elsewhere) it ruined a perfectly good nap to have to
> answer annoying requests like "describe the contents of the grey room
> you mentioned a few minutes ago..." (<snore> "Hmmm? Whuh? Uh,
> dthere's uh philing cab'nut... ......huh? ...uh, oh, uh,
> yeah...mmmm...pennnncil sharp'ner..." <snore>)

Hi Paul

That's completely comical to me. It sounds like the sleeping
prophet style. How long were new viewers trained this way until
they could CRV reliably?

I think I have encounted such a state, can it be somewhat like an out
of body experience. My "OBEs" have a very real tone to them in the
beginning but seem to fade into my imagination. Do you think a
monitor would be benificial? What are your suggestions from this
point?

John


Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 01:18:02 -0400
From: "Thomas E. Carey" <tomcarey@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] AOLs in CRV

At 09:24 AM 4/26/98 +1000, PJ wrote:
>Moderator's note: Leave it to you Jim, to do ERV while in a CRV
>structure, just to totally confuse everybody. <g> -- PJ

This constant focus on whether someone's practice embodiesTHIS structure, or
THAT structure, or yet some OTHER structure, is still a puzzle to me. Way
back when (before TV even!), Joe Louis said, "They pay on win and lose."
He'd been knocked about a bit but still knew what mattered. What works,
works, no? What doesn't, doesn't. What works for one may not for another.

Whatever mode of RV training is given, its only justification will be the
effectiveness of those who receive it. Which can only be measured on
verifiable targets. So far as I've been able to make out, every mode has its
successes, every mode its failures.

Some (few) persons apparently have the ability natively, and need no training.

Tom Carey

"Seek simplicity, and distrust it." (A. N. Whitehead)

- --------------
Moderator's Note: Well that's a good observation Tom. And you're
right of course -- whatever works for an individual is the bottom
line. Most people line up to take RV training because they either
haven't a clue how to go about getting psi data on their own, or
because their current (usually self-taught) method has some problems
they hope some training will resolve.

There are different RV methods partly because there are different
people, I suppose. The original "method" which in retrospect was
called 'ERV' is similar in some ways to Ganzfeld methods, which are
also altered state-oriented. Some people do great at that. People
who visualize real well seem to do well at that. Other people do
better with CRV. Experienced Viewers tell me they switch how they go
about things based on (a) the target and type of contact they wish to
make, and (b) because sometimes what they're doing isn't working, so
they do something else. So, like jazz and classical and rock guitar
are all different -- yet use the same instrument, chords and so forth
- -- so the different styles of RV.

As far as natural talent goes, it is my opinion that really GOOD
RVrs, regardless of method, are all naturally talented. I don't
believe that you can be good at RV without natural talent, no matter
who your guru is. There are some who argue that, saying, 'Well I
never did anything psychic, I took training, and ta-da! I did well.'
But in every case, the person hadn't actually put any real dedicated
effort into actually DOing that kind of work before, so one can't
really say there is any proof they didn't have the talent all along.

It is possible -- this would be nice :-) -- that people who (even
subconsciously) know they have talent find themselves drawn to RV.

In any case, I know the going theme of media RV is that you can take
something akin to a psychic brick and make them nearly omniscient,
but I have seen no evidence of that personally. -- PJ


Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 02:41:16 EDT
From: Curran2106 <Curran2106@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] Does Sexual Energy Enhance Psi?

In a message dated 98-04-26 22:34:27 EDT, you write:
>could it be that sexual energy enhances remote viewing?
>(Now, this is a general observation based on working with relatively
>new remote viewers over the past two years. It's not a study or
>definitive statement.)
> Pru
> Moderator's Note: Well Kundalini is associated with psi, and that
> ties into it all of course. But hey, this brings up an interesting
> monitor-Viewer experiment that I might really like being part of!
> LOL! (Send my husband out of the room...) -- PJ

Before this conversation gets out of hand..I would like to remind
everyne that I am one of (if not the) most famous Monitors in the
business so if anyone is going to practice or verify the concepts of
sexuality involved in Remote VIewing it would be wise to use the best
Remotev Viewing Monitor in the business....and I will pay my own way
therre..hahahah Prudence..with a name like Prudence I am shocked you
bring up such a subject...Guys, I assure you we did not talk about
such things on our date...I would have been difficult at best since
we had up front seats at a Irish musical club...but I wish you had
taken the opportunity to discuss this with me then Prudence...snort
snort...hahaha Gene...

- ----------
Moderator's Note: Actually I think the real meaning of "Prudence" is
more closely associated with "good judgement/wisdom" than what you're
guessing. I note she used some of that. I will definitely arrange
for a state trooper escort if we meet for lunch, Gene. ;-) -- PJ


Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:23:35 -0000
From: "John Krimes" <aaaaa@ptdprolog.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #74

> From: Paul H. Smith
> To answer a different e-mail exchange about AOL which I might as well
> include here: As a general rule, visuals are bad--especially if they are
> bright, sharply focused, and static. When encountered, these almost
> certainly are AOL. There are visuals that are more benign (especially when
> encountered later in a session), but it takes practice to sort these out.

Are you saying corect visuals are part of higher state of RV target
contact. I've had some visuals also that were correct and some lonely Ids.
Do I understand you correctly.

John


Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 08:44:33 -0400
From: "Thomas E. Carey" <tomcarey@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] Spooks in RV

At 01:01 AM 4/27/98 -0000, PJ wrote:
>Moderator's Note: Liam, if you don't correct the impression about
>spirits being involved in RV immediately I'm going to send one to
>your house to drink everything in your fridge. Gadzooks! The kind of
>thing I am always trying to avoid having associated with RV....

In several recent posts both Liam and Gene have indicated that spirits are
in fact part of their lives. Bitter experience persuaded me that at least
one of these spirits is no friend to man. One night near the end of my
senior year in high school I drank a fifth of Three Feathers all by myself.
Need I say more? This is how we learn.

Tom
- -----------
Moderator's Note: Oh, spirits! You mean THOSE kinda spirits! I mean
the haunting kind. ;-) -- PJ


Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 09:45:51 -0500
From: Craig Hogan <rchogan@ilstu.edu>
Subject: Re: [VWR] AOLs in CRV

To All:

PJ wrote "list 17 AOLs in each stage of your session, fine -- but in that
case, you'd just better be RIGHT."

I feel a little presumptious in making statements when I'm new to RV (sit
down and be quiet, grasshopper).

So I will ask rather than tell. Doesn't it seem that any AOL will
contaminate the psi signal because it contributes to noise? The mind is
impressionistic. It will fill in gaps with suppositions based upon a
person's field of experience. If I'm riding down the road and see a black
object in the distance with a raised narrower portion, I may say, "That's a
big dog in that field." If I stop and don't get closer, I will populate
that impression with fur, eyes, ears, legs, until I have made it into a
dog. That is almost against my will--as a human I must categorize and
interpret data based on a recognizable whole. If I didn't, I'd have to
reassemble and reinterpret everything in my field of vision, which would
slow my perception and action to zero.

Then, if I resume my travel, I will come closer and see there are no ears
or eyes or fur. Laughingly, I might say, "That's just a rock," and
populate that impression with feelings of hardness, smooth surface, weight,
history, geology, and so forth.

But as I get closer, I can see it's a garbage bag someone threw out of a
car. I was wrong on all counts, but each time I had an AOL, I populated
the object with all sorts of impressions, which would have led to other
impressions if I hadn't corrected them.

>From my limited experience, I believe we need to accept the psi
signals and when an AOL intrudes, step back and quiet our minds. One
of my positions was teaching medical faculty how to teach. I had to
help them teach students not to settle on a diagnosis too quickly
because that would result in mistaken diagnoses. The students would
stop looking for alternatives. The quick diagnosis would color
(contaminate) their view of test data. The same is true here. I
believe from what I've seen of RV that AOLs have no place in remote
viewing, although they are interesting conjecture afterwards.

". . . you'd just better be RIGHT." The problem is that even "right" isn't
right. The "right" is a reorganization of the psi signals by the memory.
It may be a great guess, but it is still a reorganization by memory. If
the psi signals themselves somehow labelled the target, then it would be
appropriate, but I don't think they do. Even if the remote viewer "sees"
the target as clear as a slide, it is the memory that is organizing the
impressions into an identify (AOL), not psi. It is very entertaining
conjecture, but still non-psi.

Craig Hogan

- ------------------
Moderator's Note: Hi Craig. Some interesting points you raise.

>Doesn't it seem that any AOL will contaminate the psi signal
>because it contributes to noise?

An AOL is merely something you declare on paper. That does not mean
that it IS data definitely badly affected by you. It means it is
LIKELY TO BE. It is just a flag, not a judgement.

It is important to understand that data is often called AOL merely
because it's out of stage or out of sync with other data or received
a certain way or whatever. Data perfectly valid in stage 4 may be
called an AOL if you get it in stage 2. AOL is simply a structural
notation. Making any assumption about the AOL is itself an AOL. :-)

When you get right down to it, EVERYTHING that you are capable of
communicating is, to some degree, processed information -- it had to
be, just to get put into words. Even a simple descriptive allowable
in CRV structure can also be an AOL. This emphasis on AOL as a
"thing" instead of as a "recognition of process" is kind of a 2-D
version of the overall meaning of the structure IMO; once you work
with CRV for awhile it ought to cease overshadowing the rest of the
structure in seeming importance.

>I believe we need to accept the psi signals and when an AOL
>intrudes, step back and quiet our minds.

I think you're on the right track with this, but it may be
overstated. If you are really on signal line, quieting your mind for
any length of time would probably kill your session or require you
start again. This isn't really like meditation. When data starts
coming in, the main problem is slowing it down enough to catch it and
get it all on paper. There is however another version of that, the
AOL Break, where you drop your pen and breathe for a second to kind
of 'let go' of that train of thought or impression, then pick up your
pen and continue. It isn't really a meditation to clear/empty/quiet
the mind, but a deliberately abrupt interruption of that one thought.

>I believe from what I've seen of RV that AOLs have no place in
>remote viewing, although they are interesting conjecture afterwards.

Craig, it's an interesting idea, but the fact is you will never get
rid of AOL. As long as humans are the Viewers, you're going to
have it. If you want to exclude it you'll also have to exclude
anything with a brain from being involved in the RV process. It can
be almost anything, is often unrecognized or disguised as
descriptive data, and as I said, is merely a structural observation
about how you are processing something.

All this talk about structure sometimes loses sight of the fact that
the POINT to RV is learning about yourself and how you process. We
don't categorize something as an AOL just because the structure
commands it. We do it because it is part of being aware of what's
going on with us, and it helps us pay attention to that kind of
thing. That's why the structure was designed -- to teach people to
become aware of what was going on with themselves. As far as I
am concerned, the CRV structure is not the end result of RV, it
is a training kata FOR RV. When it becomes a doctrine (end
answer) rather than a kata (structure to make you aware of how you
move and train your muscles) it has lost something crucial.

>The problem is that even "right" isn't right. The "right" is a
>reorganization of the psi signals by the memory. ... Even if the
>remote viewer "sees" the target as clear as a slide, it is the
>memory that is organizing the impressions into an identify (AOL),
>not psi. It is very entertaining conjecture, but still non-psi.

When you find a way to take insivible signals that as of yet cannot
even be deciphered by physicists, and get it into data form without
running it through a brain to process it, you will really have hit on
something awesome! In the meantime, ALL data communicated in CRV or
any psi is processed. It is merely a matter of what effect that
processing has had on the data. Sometimes the processing is what
allows us to provide accurate information, whether that is in the
form of structure or not. Sometimes it is what causes us to provide
inaccurate information.

The point of RV is learning enough about how you process things in
your head -- EVERYBODY processes things in their head, it is part
of having a head -- that you begin to have more accurate than
inaccurate data. Because you either minimize incorrect processing or
begin to recognize your own symbology etc. Nobody can make a decision
about that with a label or rule. Every human is different.

So, you can't really make a judgement about AOL across the board,
especially since important and valid data in one stage, such as 4, is
what you may be calling AOL in stage 2. Again (I keep repeating
this, I know) AOL is merely a *structural notation.* It is there
only to help the Viewer note what is going on with them. It is not a
judgement about the data. You don't know whether the data is right
or wrong until you get the feedback. You cannot stop AOL entirely,
ever, you can only minimize the more overt types of AOL such as
labeling in the first 3 stages. You'll probably have AOLs you never
even recognize anyway, even if you think you got rid of them all.
And you'll have AOLs that are only called that by nature of the fact
that you got them 4 minutes earlier in the session. So there is just
no point in making AOL a "thing" and a bad guy and trying to kill it.
It is merely an "observation," that helps you to reorgnize your way
of thinking so that hopefully you can minimize some of the more
obviously error-prone processing.

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.


End of [VWR]-Digest: V2 #86

[VWR] Archives Menu

Top

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