firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 063

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-third archive.

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

November 1997

> 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?

This concept of merging seems to be coming up not only on this board but in other contexts all around me during the past few weeks. Mostly I have observed it coming from people whose self-others boundaries are in a state of confusion, or who are struggling for control over their sense of the invasiveness of the surrounding reality. And even if you live in the country, it's difficult not to feel the fast pace of life all around us. But I'm also seeing a lot of what I feel is misperception about the parallels between feeling mystically connected to the universe and the concept of merging. Merging with human, plant, animal or mineral is all fine and good when you have choice: in other words, when you, and hopefully they, can experience one another without feeling invaded by an unchosen, unexpected, outside force.

I think true mystical union requires some respect for the boundaries of self and others. Yes, we could agree that we are all part of ONE great universal dance; but without the individual experience there is no ME to join with YOU. Without boundaries there is no individual experience, therefore no dance. And although the Ultimate goal may be to Join as One, in the interim I think we confuse a great many issues by focusing on merging with what's outside of us instead of what's inside. In regard to anything so fundamental to one's sense of self as the ability to merge or NOT to merge, if it's operating on auto pilot it needs to be dealt with.

And we are once again touching upon issues that cause many people to be repelled by anything with the PSI label on it. Forcing the issue of merging into a contextual framework from which one perceives reality leads us to a whole Pandora's box of control issues: when does one person's mode of perception (and for the sake of staying with this subject we'll pretend it really is through "merging") run into, or over, another person's private interior space.

I hope I'm expressing this in a way that doesn't upset anyone... I used to consider myself to be somewhat special and empathic, because I could perceive in a very sensory way other people's pains, moods, emotions. But the more I learned about my own inner self/space, the more I learned how to turn the "noise" down and concentrate on the essential. We tend to get fixated on the "noise" for one of two reasons: one, we think the more we can hear the more powerful, perceptive, or protected we are; two, we want to avoid taking care of our own noise.

So at some point in my journey, I began to deal with my own noise, and it has made all of the journey much more valuable and actually more fun too!


Moderator's Note: And then there are theories that all things outside us originate inside us, which makes touching a sentience 'outside' mine little different than talking with an archetype in a meditation. Either way it is a mutual thing; you cannot force yourself in anywhere (or you probably can, but I wouldn't). -- PJ

> 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?

Mary, I think you have to consider the context and intention behind tasking like this. Intention rules. It's hard to imagine a situation in which you would be tasked with an animal only. I can imagine an animal that happens to be at a location, in which case the location would be the main target. For example, maybe a biologist would want to task for the conditions in an area that he knows to be the home of a particular kind of micro-ecology or of a particular species, but it's hard to imagine being tasked with a particular animal, unless I guess perhaps that animal had already been identified as the first carrier of a new disease or something. If you were tasked with a diseased animal, then the context of requiring information about the disease would form a backdrop for the tasking given the viewer. You might, for example, want to the viewer to go to the time/place that animal was first exposed to a virus. But again, then the emphasis would be on the location and circumstances, not on the animal itself.

Does this make any sense? It just seems that the more specific tasking would be implied or would be specifically stated in the tasking (including portions not overtly provided to the viewer). But this tasking would almost always include other/more elements than the animal itself.

> > Is it more difficult to disconnect from a living creature than a > place? Can you be a plant?

Seems to me that the "difficulty" in disconnecting would be the result of the degree of identification you have/did develop during a session. If you can identify with a plant or animal to that degree (and why not?), then I suppose you might have difficulty disconnecting. But more often I suspect we will develop a more profound sense of identification with other humans (or other human-like consciousnesses <g>). That process of identification "activates" aspects of ourselves that are analogous. We never completely disconnect from many of our experiences because having "seen" new aspects of ourselves, we are forever changed by the experience.

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

If you take the "average" CRV class -- of which there are only two in existence to my knowledge <g> -- the stages/phases covered in each level are:

Beginner - 1-3 Intermediate - 4 & 5 (5 is a plug-in, which is "run" and then the viewer returns to P/S4). Advanced - A catch-all stage/phase 6-7 which includes a bunch of plug-ins that are fit into stage/phase 4.

Therefore a beginner target is strong in sensories (P/S2), and visuals that can be sketched (P/S3). It will be weak in conceptuals (P/S4), or at least good experience can be had even when ignoring the conceptual aspects.

A good example of a target that can be done at several levels is the Kremlin. This is a target I did before I'd even had any training. Someone fed me this target and although I wasn't working in CRV and therefore wasn't writing or sketching (was just talking), I did a brief equivalent of P/S2-3, very generally describing Red Square and the Kremlin building itself, but then I jumped to a description of the attitude and demeanor of the people in the building -- P/S4. (Said that the people were putting on a much more dignified face than what they really felt! LOL! The person I was working with immediately called, "Site!" meaning that I'd hit it plenty well enough for a beginner.)

An Intermediate target would be one that is strong in conceptuals, S/P4.

An Advanced target would require a lot of pegging of timeframes and perhaps movement in time and other advanced techniques, for example. But again, P/S4 is really the last in that you always return to it, even after working other techniques/plug-ins.

Of course, a more experienced/advanced student will generate A LOT more detail and specificity on even the P/S2-3 data (at times) than a beginning student will, so the distinction between levels of students is not just a matter of which stage/phase they are working in.

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

The leap from P/S3 to P/S4 is marked when conceptuals are happening in P/S2. Advanced techniques could be taught at that point (and often are), but it's probably more traditional to let the viewer get comfortable with P/S4 before giving them more. P/S4 is very complex and learning to do it comfortably and effortlessly takes a lot of practice.


Moderator's Note: Skye, about "The leap from P/S3 to P/S4 is marked when conceptuals are happening in P/S2." That's the first time I've heard it described quite like that. Usually the leap between 3&4 is marked by an Aesthetic Impact being noted, which ends the sketching and begins the conceptuals. Not a big deal I guess. -- PJ

Hi Mary,

I'll try my hand at this...

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

If you can be them and describe them while being them, that would work. At some point descriptives will be desired from the session, but conceptuals and emotionals are too. Most people start with descriptives and then go to conceptuals, as that is how the structure of CRV is designed, but if you can get both, that works for me.

As long as you are capable of differentiating between (for instance) an emotion the biological may be having from one you're having, and as long as you accurately communicate the data you get whatever the perspective, I don't see that it should make too much difference.

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

I would avoid un-training yourself from anything which appears to be a natural talent. That being said, it might not hurt to attempt to delay or structure the flow of information you're getting so it's in a more convenient order. Too much empathy with the target can affect you and affect your session. At some point that level of contact may be necessary, but if you dive right into that, you might miss a lot of other information in the process.

You can try talking out loud or writing/talking to your subconscious, and ask it to give you data *about* the target before it becomes one with it, if that's what it's doing. It will also help to structure it a bit if you want to eventually work with CRV, as it will make the process less painful to fit into if you already work in the generally prescribed order of data.

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

I assume you're referring to practice targets where an animal is featured. (And I assume in this case the tasking is specifically "at the time the feedback photo was taken," since the target may not exist anymore otherwise.) In the case of photo-feedback practice targets, the target is whatever you see when you get your feedback. If it's a herd of sheep, the target is a herd. If it's a kangaroo, the target is the one roo.

If you are going to target a species you may end up talking to the deva, which would be a very interesting session, but probably more spiritual than the mundane data you're looking for. I don't see why a target of an animal would be handled any differently than that of a human. They're all "biologicals."

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

I don't know. Maybe it's different for everybody. Even in real life, there are people who can walk away from lovers without a thought yet long for their homeland with passion. Different things probably touch people in different ways.

>>Can you be a plant?

A vegetable, or a fruit? ;-) Just kidding. As far as formal RV goes, I have never been a plant. I have felt plants but that's about it, and that in a beginner session. Outside RV however, I can tell you that you can "be" anything. Even inanimate objects have consciousness. But this goes way over the border outside standard CRV I think and probably into metaphysics.

In my experience the "merging" may be awesome, evolutionary and fascinating, but it didn't give me much *physical* data that would be most useful in a CRV session. (Investigators don't care about its relationship within the dynamic psychological structure of reality as we know it. They just want to know what it looks like. <g>)

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

It depends on who you train with and who you listen to. I can give you my opinion as usual but I'm not an expert....

Technically there might be no such thing, but overall there are some targets which appear to be either easier, or more basic, than others, and some targets which are stronger in one type of information than others.

High-entropy targets (such as nuclear devices, or as Joe pointed out in a message, the great pyramid) seem to be easier for Viewers to access than others. I don't know why. Those targets may be good practice for new Viewers in training, still getting used to the feel of making contact at all.

Inanimate moving objects (such as a car) seem to be more difficult for Viewers to access than others. I don't know why. Those targets are probably best avoided with new Viewers.

Targets with repeating elements in them (such as a building with many arches, or a forest of trees) seem to be easier for Viewers to get recognizeable data from than others. I don't know why. Those are good targets for any level session.

The structure of CRV imposes certain other preferences (for some people). For instance, one doesn't get much into concepts, emotions and so on until stage 4, and as a result, biologicals and objects are often not given as practice targets until the intermediate level of training. The initial level for some is solely a few major gestalts: land, water, mountain, structure (or building). If timelines are not taught until the advanced levels, targets requiring specific time focus (such as some events or objects) may not be brought into the practice arena until then.

Others feel differently and give any target at all from day one, and they may include dynamics such as "motion" or "growth," things such as "biological" and "organic," and "manmade" or "event" as initial ideograms (and therefore gestalts). That depends on your instructor.

Targets high in descriptives, say with lots of colors, textures, smells, whatever -- a lot of sensory information -- are usually tasked toward new Viewers, because that's the phases they're working in and there's lots of data for them to obtain. Targets high in conceptuals (purpose, history, emotionals, etc.) may be held until intermediate level, since new Viewers aren't usually working with many conceptuals. (Also, strong conceptuals/emotionals can sometimes really knock on a Viewer, and new ones may not be ready for that.) Targets requiring very detailed work -- timing, modeling, technical level specs, document gist, et al. -- may be advanced targets.

Lastly, good tasking for targets applies no matter what the level you're working at.

For example, a photo overview of a city is a bad target. I once got that, got random information, and profiled at 100% for no better reason than because the photo showed nearly everything known to man and a golf course to boot. Wouldn't have mattered if I'd described dry land, sand, water, grass, buildings, bridges, sidewalks, people, animals, vehicles -- no matter what I said, it was fair to figure it was in there somewhere. Targets need to be something specific.

A photo of something that doesn't show you the context it is in can be hard on a Viewer. If the target is basically a building, you're going to be disappointed if you described the land layout at great length and can only see the fancy clock tower. If you're choosing targets from photos, choose something that has enough context that some of the other data a Viewer may get might be at least logical to ascertain based on the feedback.

It may be best to avoid advertisements that appear to have graphic editing possible in them that would fundamentally change the target. Viewing the target to have your feedback show you something different could be detrimental, if the point of feedback is to learn. Trucks seldom sit on display on finger-cliffs; they are just inserted there graphically. Photos with flowers or sand are usually graphically altered either to remove tromping of the terrain or to insert the photo image into it. Many ads today are totally separate photos just image-composed onto each other. And so on. Consider that if the target is an "ad," the actual "site" of the target may be somebody's home studio and the real picture may be created graphics or a conglomerate of totally separate photo pieces. If the point is to view the target not the feedback, this could be bewildering for a long list of reasons.

"Live sites" are great for practice targets. If you have someone who can learn basic target criteria and give you lots of blank sealed envelopes with the address or placement of a local site inside, that can make your feedback more intensive.

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

If you aren't choosing your own targets (I hope, unless you're making a widely varied pool of about 200), how does one know what "level" a target would be at, were there such a thing?

Perhaps the best explanation is to say that targets "inherently" do not have any degree of complexity. However, Viewers have degrees of complexity of data (and type of data) that they are capable of getting. One is determining targets based on the student Viewer.

If a student is just learning to get a gestalt and a few colors, there is little point to giving them targets/feedback like the gates of a concentration camp, or the throne of a deposed king. They're not doing concepts, emotions, timelines, or other things that would be well utilized in conjunction with such a target with a more advanced Viewer. They'll probably describe the vertical bars on the gate. That's all very well, but it's a good practice target underutilized.

The practice targets found online vary:

Angela Thompson has a number of targets at the Inner Vision site. Most of the targets there are basic beginning targets. [formerly innervision, site now closed - archivists note]

Lyn Buchanan has just a few targets at the CRV Home Page, though I think Lael is making them a new site as we speak. Most of his are actually more toward intermediate level by traditional CRV standards, and his also include dowsing maps and optional frontloading.

The Firedocs site has about 40 targets up right now, and as soon as Liam finishes sending his outbounder feedback, will have some date/time real outbounder targets to RV if you haven't already. And some from Lyn. Other than the outbounders, the 40 targets are a mix of basic and intermediate level student-skill.

Good luck. Thanks for asking.


> made similar comments in private posts to other group members. I > truly believe that all of us were brought together for a reason. I > have no idea what that reason is, but I believe more will be > revealed as we trudge the road of happy destiny. (my apologizes and > thanks to the original author).

My Chinese fortune cookie yesterday said, "You are headed in the right direction."

"Oh, good" I said. "Now, if I can only figure out which of my gazillion directions the fortune cookie spirits were referring to..." ;-)

Like most all of us who have taken the training (and even those who haven't, but have felt compelled to experiment and learn on their own), I had RVing hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks. Almost literally, one day I woke up and *had* to take the training and do this thing.

There are so many potential ways to go with this, it's hard to know exactly what my future will look like (something that drives me crazy). But there's no question that this is a pathway to something. Whether RV will be the end result, or just a step along the way remains to be seen.


>How do you investigate your probable future through RV. (I DON'T mean winning the lottery, (silent prayer).<G>.)

Mary, why do you exclude winning the lottery? Don't you think a professional remote viewer could win the lottery, if he focuseed his subconscious power on that mission. I am sure that if we ask some of the highly-skilled RV professionals at this site to elaborate on their personal experiments in the areas of gaming, lottery picks, race and dog track winnings, Inveestment stocks, football picks, and even finding a suitable date that we would get some very practical and interesting comments. Eight million people took Silva Mind Control to learn how to create a parking place, how to get up in the morning without an alarm clock, etc.

Remember, we are talking the power of the subconscious mind; whereas remote viewing is one of many techniqueas to access this mind. To often, in my opinion, remote viewing gets buried in military discourse, secrecy, or far-out extra-terestial matters and we shy away from talking about their real down to earth experiments in mastering the powers of our subconscious minds. Remote viewing made a significant contribution, twenty some years ago by providing a highly disciplined techniques (protocols) for allowing the subconscious to communicate with the conscious mind. The power of the subconscious mind has been written about for ages: it is just in our generation we have found a technique called remote viewing for re-establishing this communications between our subs and our conscious minds. One example of earlier writings that I like was in 1912, Christian D. Larson wrote, in his book The Great Within, "Personal power, physical health, mental brilliancy, remarkable ability, extraordinary talents, rare genius, -- these are attainments that the subconscious of every mind can readily produce and bring forth when properly directed and impressed."

Well, MaryD I didn't answer your question directly, however I am looking forward to some very interesting reponses to this request for assistance. Lets try and see.

Aloha, Stephen

Hi All,

Thank you all so much for your quick and comprehensive responses to my reposts. It is appreciated, more than you realise. I hope I haven't generated too much flak for Palyne. Unless she likes it of course <g>.

OK, another set of inter related Q.

How can you tell when a session is over.

How can you tell whether you have got all there is to get.

How can you tell when you have got all there is to get.

Also, should you, can you intentionally call a halt, and return later.

Should you call a halt if you become personally/emotionally involved and feel the need to detach.

Should you call a halt if you find yourself feeling physicall ill or overwhelmed, or push your way through it.

Thanks my friends.



Moderator's Note: Don't mind me. I live for stress. -- PJ

Why is it I have the feeling you already have the answers and are just taunting us? Be that as it may, here are some A's to your Qs. ;-)

> How can you tell when a session is over.

You can't because often it isn't. Theoretically you could find every connecting person, object, timeframe and event to the one you are viewing and you could be there forever.

It's more like the viewer (sometimes with an assist from the monitor) *decides* that it's over. For me it's usually a gut instinct that says something like, "That's it. I've had a enough of this s****." :-)

I say this jokingly, but often that's exactly what it feels like and once I get the feedback it turns out that I *have* gotten enough.

Also, in thinking about this now, I don't see why you couldn't set up a yes/no finger twitch response to the question, "Have I gotten enough information to satisfy the intention of the tasking?" and let your inner knowingness about the tasking/session indicate if you are done.

> How can you tell whether you have got all there is to get.

See above.

> How can you tell when you have got all there is to get.

See above.

> Also, should you, can you intentionally call a halt, and return > later.

Yes, you can.

> Should you call a halt if you become personally/emotionally involved > and feel the need to detach.

If you want to detach, then do. But realize that if you're that locked in, it might be a shame to waste the opportunity, unless the emotion is getting hopelessly in the way. Hypnotists use a suggestion for subjects when they are exploring especially emotional material -- they tell them to become an observer to the event, rather than experiencing themselves as a participant. I don't see why that wouldn't work in RVing too.

> > Should you call a halt if you find yourself feeling physicall ill or > overwhelmed, or push your way through it.

This happened to me once, doing a Dachau target. It wasn't so much my reaction to the site itself, since these effects started immediately as soon as I started the session. But I think I sensed the nature of the target and created all the physical dizziness and sick sensations as a smokescreen so I wouldn't tap too directly into the target. In that case I couldn't get past it and just ended the target.


>Mary, why do you exclude winning the lottery? \snip\ >Eight million people took Silva Mind Control to learn how to create >....

There a Catch22 here. If even a tenth of all practicing RVer's learned how to "win the lottery," the parimutuel distribution would seriously frustrate all of them.

If anyone can do it, gung ho, banzai, Geronimo! --- go for it. But teaching that skill (successfully) on a broadcast basis would be dismally counterproductive.

Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as dissing "the power of the subconscious mind" in any way.

Tom C

"You must believe in free will; there is no choice." (Isaac Bashevis Singer)

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.