[VWR]-Digest: V2 #87


Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:31:22
From: "Paul H. Smith" <phsmith@rviewer.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] Does Sexual Energy Enhance Psi?

At 02:41 AM 4/27/98 EDT, you wrote:
>guessing. I note she used some of that. I will definitely arrange
>for a state trooper escort if we meet for lunch, Gene. ;-) -- PJ

Hmmmmm... given what we know of our Chief Executives alleged past history,
what are you trying to suggest with this "state trooper" business, PJ?

Paul

- --------------
Moderator's Note: You're right I guess. That wouldn't work. Well,
maybe a gentle doberman. ;-) -- PJ


Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:43:16 EDT
From: USPsiSquad <USPsiSquad@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #72

You are right about the subconscious being entirely 'literal' Yes,
it is, and it is almost childlike in its fidelity and purpose to
provide you an answer, no matter right nor wrong.
For truth, you must learn to reach 'below' that level.

Secondly, you are _so_ right about asking the question simply,
clearly and with great care, for if you do not, then you will get
hash or bologna when you long for filet mignon.
Asking the questions properly is more than half the art.

Bevy J

- ---------------
Moderator's Note: And that's certainly true in RV. A good
understanding of tasking is critical or the best Viewers around may
not be much help. Unbeknownst to Liam, Gene, Paul, Lyn, Greg and
Joe, they have all volunteered to help me on a number of FAQs, one of
which is specifically directed at examples of tasking in different
situations. Them guys, they are SO chivalrous, eh! -- PJ


Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 20:39:59 -0400
From: David Pursglove <74434.351@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] Shamans & RV (Drugs...)

> Notwithstanding the many degrees and titles of the people who will no
doubt challenge his statements...what you may not know is that his wife is
an active practitionor of many of the shamanistic rituals as a native
American. She is also a wonderfully and courageously reformed alchoholic so she
knows the pitfalls of the easy way...some things cannot be learned in books
at wonderful ivy covered halls of learning...

Wow! This I also can't let go by. The innuendo is just too redolent.
Especially in light of the post to which Curran is responding and my reply
to it.

First thing to note is that almost none of the psychoactives are
physiologically addictive. Most especially not is MDMA. Take the same
dose or even double the dose tomorrow that you took today, and all you'll
get is antsy and uncomfortable. No psychoactive or even pleasant effect
whatever. It's about a seven day period between usages for any optimal
effect.

That these compounds are listed on Schedule I by the DEA is absurd. One of
the four requirements for inclusion of a compound on Schedule I is that the
substance be demonstrably physiologically addictive. None of the major
psychedelics or other psychoactives qualify here, and yet are firmly
clutched in the cold dead hand of that Schedule. That effectively removes
them from the possibility even of toxicity studies. Even Lester Young, the
independent administrative judge who held many hearings on the occasion of
the huge uproar of protest from clergy, social workers, therapists,
psychiatrists, etc. that followed the scheduling of MDMA on Schedule I in
'86, told the DEA Administrator the substance should be on Schedule III,
that it had an excellent track record as a tool for psychological healing
and growth. That further experimentation was definitely called for. The
Administrator's granitic consciousness was not to be moved, however. And
since it's his ball and his court, MDMA is still sitting in Schedule I.

To make the implied comparison of any psychoactive compound to alcohol as
any sort of "easy way" is nonsense. MDMA isn't an "easy" way to anything
either, and I surely never implied as much. Only that it might be of
assistance, maybe a non-specific amplifier in the RV effort. Maybe more.

And the freighted comment about "ivy halls" and "learning" is also
completely misdirected. The *experience* of these compounds is very seldom
associated with ivy of any kind. Recall Harvard's response to Leary and
Alpert (now Ram Dass) in '62. It's just possible that most university
faculty members in the USA, even those in pharmacology, know even less than
you do about psychoactive compounds.

- -=d=-

- ---------------
Moderator's Note: <Sigh......> D is not for diplomacy today. -- PJ


Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:19:58 EDT
From: USPsiSquad <USPsiSquad@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] Shamans & RV/Monika's exp./entities etc.

I will preface all that I am about to say with IMHO.

I have previously stated that I feel peyote or any other recreational
drugs have no place in RV or PSI work. As a teacher and instructor
for many decades, it is my observation that even some types of OTC
medications can inhibit psi.

It is with concern that I have been reading Posts to VWR/PSI lists
concerning 'voices' 'entities' etc. I feel that such incidents or
occurrences have no more place in Remote Viewing or PSI work than do
psychedelic drugs. Again, as a teacher, student, researcher and
active worker in many areas of PSI and in RV (non-military) I can
state with complete truth that there has been no such problem or
incidence of such problems in my own work, and life; nor has there
been in the lives and work of those I have trained and worked with
over these many years. The only time such problems arise is if IMHO
there is something wrong with the training methods, the guidance
provided by the instructor or from activities outside of and beyond
the normal practice of psi, or remote viewing.

For a good many years, our group was known as the Psychic Rescue
Squad, until we got too many calls to get cats out of trees or find
missing hunters, and many of us were/are knowledgeable about a great
many areas of psi that were known as 'para-psychic', and which
included 'entities' 'voices' 'apparitions' 'influences' etc.
It is not my intention to imply that either I myself or members of my group at
that time or today, are infallible, super-mentors or in any other way 'better'
than anyone else. We continue, like all of you, to research and to study.

However:

There should never be some vulnerability to 'entities' 'forces' or
other disturbing or invasive voices, feelings, etc., which occurs to
people learning to use their natural psi abilities. In fact,
programs such as the USSR training programs I learned under, and
those provided at SRI were originally designed to completely obviate
any slight aspect of such 'outside of normal' occurrence'.
There is also a natural 'built-in' protection which, unless possibly
deliberately forsaken by some non-natural occult practice, will and does
protect each of us.

If it were not so, then the many fine researchers into the normal
usages of psi, and my own groupas well, would have encountered such
things. Each of us, in any walk of life has vagrant thoughts, most of
them coming directly from the subconscious, (and usually negative)
which _could_ be taken to be 'voices'.

Some of us even refer to them as 'that small voice'. However, most
of us have learned, I would hope, to recognize them for what they are
and and to ignore them. The known factors of negativity of the human
subconscious are well documented by many psychologists, beginning
with Sigmund Freud. These differ, naturally, from the kind of
'voices' heard by the psychotic, although their source may be the
same.

Shamanism

Having studied this at length and having worked with a good many
authorities including Dr. Laile Bartlett, Ph.D. author of PSI TREK,
and Dr. Jeffrey Goodman, author of a good many authoritative books on
Psychic Archaeology, Earthquake Prediction, Human Evolution and
Shamanism, I know that there are many types and kinds of Shamanism.
Not all of these involve any type of drug or conciousness alteration by
artificial means. In fact, the most effective of these do _not_ involve such
aids.

Most if not all of them are tied to some framework of religion or
religious practice.

It is also true that a trained,effective Remote Viewer is actually
practicing one of the highest forms of shamanistic accomplishment.
(without, however, the religious framework) (Also, hopefully, we do
not call it 'shamanism'.) This shamanistic psi-accomplishment would
be useless if not dangerous, should any type of invasion or 'attack'
by forces visible or invisible be the concomitant. (result)

It is evident that some forms of Shamanism are designed to provide
those who are willing to undergo the many long years of training and
experience required are given the ability to 'see' and to 'control'
or 'remove' such invasive forces or energies from the afflicted.
This is retained within a spiritual/religious framework, and is not
lightly used. It is totally serious and belongs only to those trained
for it, and are of that religion or belief structure. Certainly it
should remain with them.

In shamanistic practice, methods of strengthening the personal energy
and self protection are also taught. Because we do _not_ involve any
religious aspect into the practice of remote viewing, nor are we
doing it for religious or spiritual reasons, there should be no need
for this extra protection. It is recorded in history that 'lookers'
were trained to see into time and distance even as early as Pharaonic
times. This was not considered a religious practice, however, and
the word has come down to us as 'see-ers'. IMHO The ability to remote
view should never open the viewer to such forces as we are now
discussing. If it does, then there is something drastically wrong.

It is distressing to many of us that Remote Viewing has recently and
increasingly been 'pegged' into the 'aliens and UFO' area. This is not and
should not be an 'X-files activity'. Remote viewing is not a sideshow act.

It would be even more distressing to have it pegged back into the
morass of spiritualism and astral-entity categories which have kept
responsible scientists from daring to explore its possibilities for
decades. We have worked too hard for respectability and rationality
to have this happen. It may be hard today to imagine the enormous
amount of effort it took those of us in this at the beginning to keep
this taint from attaching itself to the work we were doing, ( not to
mention having to re-educate most of the populace as to what RV is
and what it is not) Until now, it has been successful.

I believe that we must maintain this, for the good of us all. Right?

Bevy J
U. S. Psi Squad
http://www.Slipstrym.com/USPsiSquad/

- -----------------------
Moderator's Note: Well heck Bevy, you've got MY vote. I've been
protesting about the twilight-zone-take on RV for years now, not that
it has done any good, of course. ;-) -- PJ


Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:48:48 -0500
From: Shelia Massey <gnmassey@gte.net>
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?

If you mean RV in the midst of...hmmm, sounds like a balancing act to
me...could get dangerous...."thud"..."ah, geez, honey...get that pen out
of my navel"....

But if you mean, through abstinence, building sexual energy in order
to use it, it seems counter-productive. Repressing one's natural
expression of sexuality tends to close down the sensory receptors.
Gurdjieff and Ouspensky felt that ideas about holding and using
sexual energy for creativity, consciousness expansion, etc. were
misplaced. Each center of consciousness (i.e., emotional, intellectual,
etc) has its own unique function and sourcing. Repressing sexual energy
will not add anything to another center's energy levels.

I like Jane Roberts' comment in regard to the development of
consciousness; something to the effect: as one becomes more "intimate"
with, or "experienced" in, alternate states of consciousness, the
universe becomes more sexy and sex becomes more friendly.

Shelia

- -----------------
Moderator's Note: Abstinence! Aaaaauuugggghhhh! I would say
something about Tantra but you know, that would drag this topic right
back into the religious/metaphysical framework Bevy so rightfully
pointed out that RV was nicely viewable without, so I won't. Still,
there ARE other options..... I hope. :-) -- PJ


Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 06:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Edith Prickley <prickleyheat@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #74

Aol and How to Handle it using trv:

I do not know how other methods deal with Aol but when we find we are
in AOL drive we write down all AOLs drop our pens for a second and
take a break If Aol drive is really strong a seperate aol sketch is
done.I also take a 5 minute break after.I think the most important
thing is that all data is recorded whether on or off .

- ----------------------
Moderator's Note: Hi Edith. Excepting potential changes or additions
made to the structures by individual instructors, TRV and CRV in
format are basically identical. The perspective on them (how things
are enforced, why things are done, et al) is different, but as far as
what gets written on paper, they are the same. Just in case that
helps people to understand. -- 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 #87

[VWR] Archives Menu

Top

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