[VWR]-Digest: V2 #85

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:22:27 -0700
From: Skye Turell <turel33@west.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR] AOLs in CRV

Mark wrote:
> Hi Liam, I`m very surprised that Ingo Swann`s rule no 1. should be so be
> so inflexible coming from a man i believe to be quite the opposite.

> Liam wrote:
> > Liam here. As I recall Ingo had three rules for identifying AOLs
> > (Paul, you have the manual, so please feel free to jump in here and
> > clarify if I get off base.)
> > Ingo's rules:
> > 1. If it is a visual it is AOL


> Moderator's Note: Mark, I think you are taking all this a tad too
> seriously. :-) Swann is notorious for insisting his students stick
> precisely to rules and so forth. Whether that makes him inflexible
> personally I have no idea, but I wouldn't dare speculate....

I've been waiting for someone to make this distinction, but since no
one has, I guess I will. In the above statement the term "visual"
doesn't mean ANY sort of visual perception. It means fleshed-out,
fully formed perceptions of scenes or objects. During the course of
the session you might get a quick flash of a color, a texture, a
shape, or other kind of rudimentary sensory impression and this is
absolutely OK. The problem comes when you see a flash of blue and
white and assume this is white caps on the ocean. It's the
identification, "ocean" that's the problem and is considered an AOL.


> The common response to this, since AOLs are avoided, is to assume
> that AOL's are wrong. That's not necessarily true.

This may be the "common response," but not to someone trained in CRV.
There's nothing wrong with AOL's and in some stages of the session
there are procedures for extracting the accurate information from
AOL's that come up during the session. AOL's are only a problem when
the viewer doesn't have the discipline to handle them properly (which
happens to all of us sometimes).

> The rules of CRV aren't there to beat people into psychic submission
> (though some may disagree <g>) but to work as a support for the
> Viewer.

Again, the term "discipline" comes to mind. One way or another the
viewer is going to have to handle situations like AOL. If they don't
like the structure of CRV, then they are going to have to invent
something very like it functionally.

...But in that case,
> you'd just better be RIGHT. ;-)

Exactly. If someone wants to operate without discipline, if they want
to believe the session is absolutely correct, from the first
perception to the last, then they'd darn well better be somewhere
above World Class. I personally don't know any people like that (that
are human).

- --

Skye Turell <turel33@west.net>
ICQ Pager 6797092

- -----------------
Moderator's Note: I thought the visual (complete picture vs. fleeting
perceptions) part had been covered in the first posts but now that I
think about it, you're right, it hadn't been. Good point. -- PJ

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 23:28:27 -0400
From: Black Oak Solutions <blackoak@compuserve.com>
Subject: [VWR] Does Sexual Energy Enhance Psi?

>those who are young men (in their early 20s) and women who are at
>least 40. Since both of these age/gender groups are at their sexual
>peak, could it be that sexual energy enhances remote viewing?

I really think you got the age thing backwards.... right guys? ;-)


- ----------------
Moderator's Note: Well in high school in the early 80's they taught
us that the 'peak' was age 17 for men and about age 37 for women.
Then again, we also had textbooks about men walking on the moon --
"someday".... -- PJ

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 23:28:25 -0400
From: Black Oak Solutions <blackoak@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] AOLs in CRV

>> 1. If it is a visual it is AOL<

Why? I've had visuals towards the end of a session that were accurate...
Any thoughts?


- --------------
Moderator's Note: Hi Ralph. As I think I mentioned in another post
tonight, AOL merely signifies a notation that a piece of data is
outside the planned structure of CRV and may have a higher
probability of being "affected" by the Viewer's internal processing.
It doesn't mean the data HAS been affected or that it is inaccurate.
It is just a structural observation. -- PJ

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 01:34:08 -0400
From: "Thomas E. Carey" <tomcarey@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] Silva on RV

At 07:07 PM 4/25/98 +0100, PJ wrote:

>Moderator's Note: You're dangerously close to "invoking politics on
>the list" with this message Mary. :-)

Eschewing politics here, as required, I only note that some of the money the
government puts into non-ordinary intelligence activities might be well
spent in efforts to study the eventual _consequences_ of political
decisions under consideration.

Tom Carey

"Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown." (Erwin

- ------------
Moderator's Note: Hi Tom. It's been awhile my friend. Actually I
think that's a great idea -- they certainly should! As for politics,
I am referring to the politics of what I call the "methods wars" in
the RV training field, or as I think Rick once dubbed the media
aspect of things, "The Great RV Space Opera." Not literal politics
of the gov't. If you can tie that to RV, it's a valid topic. -- PJ

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 01:25:53 -0000
From: "John Krimes" <aaaaa@ptdprolog.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR] VWR AOLs in ERV

> From: Liam
>ERV is better for certain sites and CRV is better for certain
> sites. The ideal is for the operations officer to have the ability to
> work each target using both styles of RV.

What sites do you prefer to use what and why?


Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 01:31:37 -0000
From: "John Krimes" <aaaaa@ptdprolog.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR] AOLs in CRV

> From: Skye Turell
> Exactly. If someone wants to operate without discipline, if they want
> to believe the session is absolutely correct, from the first
> perception to the last, then they'd darn well better be somewhere
> above World Class. I personally don't know any people like that (that
> are human).

Then are you saying that one must learn to desipher correct visuals from
incorrct visuals pluse open to the other five senses. Are there AOLs in
the other five senses?


- ---------------
Moderator's Note: Geez John, for a minute even I was confused! But
this is a good question, because it reveals some underlying
assumptions about what AOL is that may be causing some confusion.

#1) There is data. Any kind of data. Who really knows where it
comes from? Swann's CRV has a theory. Let's just say there is

#2) Then there is you. Who really knows how you intake and process
that data? Swann's CRV has a theory. Let's just say information has
to go through "the filter of you," from pure information form to your
sensory translation and eventually into your native language form.

#3) Then there is your session data. This is, we hope, as close to
the first original information as possible. But, being as it
filtered through a human, it probably isn't going to be perfect.

The trick in learning RV is figuring out how you have affected and
are affecting your session. In other words, you aren't learning
so much about psi as you are learning about _yourself._ You do this
by comparing the original information source (feedback), #1, to your
session data, #3. And hopefully in that process you begin to figure
out what the heck happened in the middle, and why, and how to
interpret it properly in the future.

So, there is really no such thing as a certain type of data being AOL
itSELF. It's just that over a lot of years of study and research and
practice, it was found that certain things, when written down in #3,
very often proved to have quite a bit of "processing" mixed in or
interfering with them -- they often don't match #1, the feedback.
So, as part of the CRV structure, students are taught to look out for
that type of data.

But it really isn't about the DATA being an AOL -- it's about the #3
version of things -- what you write down in your session -- being,
most likely, a result of internal processing.

Am I making sense? It IS rather late....


Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 01:01:35 -0000
From: "John Krimes" <aaaaa@ptdprolog.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR] Spooks in RV

> From: Liam
> I tend to be real careful in dealing with the spirit world. Spirits
> are a lot like your unemployed brother-in-law. Once you invite them
> in, you can have the devil of a time getting them to leave.

Liam I think I comprehend are you saying that you deal with a spirit during
EVR orCRV, but if you make some bad dessions during the day you may have
envoked a leprecon(less than nice spirit)?


- ---------------
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.... -- PJ

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:54:49 -0400
From: "Thomas E. Carey" <tomcarey@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR] Spooks in RV

At 04:55 PM 4/25/98 +0200, Liam wrote:
>and even good spirits may have their own agenda.

Whatever "agency" one may meet will have his/her/its own individual
view of the world, just as we do ourselves. And may differ
substantially also in his/her/its comprehension of what that "world"
includes. Even slight differences of viewpoint among ourselves can
generate substantial misunderstandings. How much more might this be
so in contacts with these other "agencies"?

>If you do not believe in spirits, then do not read what I just wrote.

Or any of the foregoing.

Tom Carey

"If society were rational, men, not women, would be riding sidesaddle." (Anon.)

[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 #85

[VWR] Archives Menu


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