Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info
Remote Viewing info page spacer

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion, Yahoo Groups.
Source Location: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/
Filetype: Archive. Topic: Remote Viewing. Blocked: by topic detail.
Archive Storage: www.firedocs.com/pjrv/ and http://www.dojopsi.info/pjrv/
Archivist: Palyne PJ Gaenir (PJRV, Palyne, Firedocs RV, TKR and the Dojo Psi.? )



begin archive





pjrv : Messages : 1617-1636 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1617?? ) ?
?3:1?:48
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1617

From: aeonblueau8008... Date: Wed Dec 4, ?00? 1:3? pm Subject: Re: cartoon crash site terri8008 . . . . (IMO? ) It's not symbology (that's flat out lazy? ), it's shadow- not all there, sometime akin to an ink blot. Impressionistic. Possible dirty signal, mind noise, don't think it has much to do with SC. Left braining, thinking, equaling, equating in session commander general type. RV tends to be or reside in the shadow land/s. Shady. Grainy, not much substance. Hence the descriptive.The mind often all too readily jumps in to fill in the detail or pixel. There is a commercial on USA television ... it's about cell phones. The wife calls and says rent a movie, old. The hubby gets(hears? ) get a monkey with a cold. Something like that anyway. Bad connection, noisy, distorted.. open to interpretation and impression. Shadow lands.. That about sums it up. Mind noise. Static. I would have to ask.. are you going for visuals. an do you trust them? Some folks in the past were/are under the impression that RV especially ERV is like a streaming 3-d technicolor video. (3-d visuals are rarely spot on? ). Most of RV is highly sensual as in you/your sense, (accurate? ) flash images can come in at the end but rarely. I often say it's feeling (sensual? ) around like a blind person.. that about sums it up. All other senses are heightened except for visual. Have you ever "closed" your whatever eyes in session and felt/heard/smelled/tasted/etc... crawled around the site "blind" inch by inch? It's a good practice IMO not to mention experience, highly disciplined. It's hard, a shock to the mind/opener. ~~Terri

#16??

From: greenmn900... Date: Wed Dec 4, ?00? 3:53 pm Subject: Re: cartoon crash site greenmn900... Terri, > you wrote: > "...(IMO? ) it's not symbology (that's flat out lazy? ), > it's shadow-not all there, something akin to an ink blot." It IS symbology. And actually, it's one of the few symbols I can count on because it's one of the few that hasn't changed in all these years. To this day, I get cartoon-like perceptions of airplanes and so far, with everyone I've gotten, they've always been correct. I don't get Snoopy in the cockpit anymore, though (I wonder why?? ). This is an example of anything but left-brained thinking. It obviously was NOT "mind-noise", or "static" as it was correct. And it has ended up being a very useful symbol for me. > you wrote: > "I would have to ask..are you going for visuals an do you trust them?" No, I never really go for anything when I'm RVing. I let the data come to me in whatever form my subconscious wants to package it. I get data in many ways; visual, auditory, olfactory, kinesthetic, aesthetic, emotional, conceptual, etc. Sometimes I'll get hit by data coming in in ? or more of these ways at the same damned time. That's hard to process and hard to objectify - "what the hell was all that?" lol! I trust my visuals as much and as little as I trust any kind of data. But I DO tend to be pretty visual. > you wrote: > "Most of RV is highly sensual as in you/your sense, > (accurate? ) flash images can come in at the end but rarely." Maybe this is true for YOU. It's not for ME. I get visuals from the very begininng of the session. The vast majority of my sessions have begun with flash visuals that form a gestalt of the target. As the session proceeds, the visuals become more detailed and more specific. And they begin to be accompanied by concepts, sounds, phrases, etc. But in general ALL my data, regardless of whether it's visual, auditory, kinesthetic or whatever, is more accurate toward the end of the session - but not always. Quite a few times I've nailed it (got an amazingly direct hit? ) with my initial data, only to lose it and veer off-course, with the rest of my data becoming more and more off as the session progresses. But, then again, sometimes, I only veer off a little and then seem to get back on-target. > you wrote: > "Have you ever "closed" your whatever eyes in session and > felt/heard/smelled/tasted/etc... crawled around the site > "blind" inch by inch?" Yes, I tried that a few times back when I first started RVing because I had read that other, government RVers tried it. It didn't make any difference for me. The data still came in whatever form it wanted to. Nowadays, I can usually question myself about a target in the middle of the session and really explore it in that way. I can direct myself to investigate previous perceptions more fully. I can purposely move about the site and back and forth in time (although the time thing is quite a bit harder to do and to control? ). But the data STILL comes in whatever way it wants to. I have no control over whether it's visual, kinesthetic, etc. Don

#16?3

Date: Wed Dec 4, ?00? 11:11 pm Subject: Re: cartoon crash site dennanm Hi Terri, > (IMO? ) It's not symbology (that's flat out lazy? ), [snip] The idea that data described as 'symbolic' is merely 'lazy' is pretty hilarious. I'll have to think about that. It might be true. It strikes me more as an avoidance of wanting to deal with one's inner self, so instead of exploring what one finds to understand it, wanting to avoid that altogether, but then, that's probably just my response because I'm on the opposite side of opinion about it! I suppose it seems lazy from the other end... > Possible dirty signal, mind noise, don't think it has > much to do with SC. Dirty signal? What is that?? I would have to invent an entire NEW concept based on something like signal line (but modified? ) to postulate that as an alternative theory. I think anything to do with how the mind works has a lot to do with psychology or the subconscious and I think the psychology works very heavily in symbols as closer to its own language. Actually I think I am so baffled by anybody who doesn't recognize or validate the mind using symbology as language that I am not even sure what to say to it. Do you also think dreams are not meaningful or symbolic but are only "the junkyard of the brain" as one writer put it? I guess you must -- if you felt dreams were "symbolic and meaningful" and they were of the mind, it wouldn't really make sense to think that other things using the mind wouldn't be so as well. Mind noise, I guess you mean left brain, but I do not believe that all the symbolic data I get is from that source. SOME data does "unfold inside me" that is likely sort of formed and rolled up or translated by left brain. Usually it's verbal data and I don't consider that symbolic I just consider it layered. And that isn't noise IMO it is actually an advanced mental mandala kind of thing that just waits on my ability to intuitively unfold it. Most the stuff I get that is symbolic is visual. VERY visual. Very clear, though often very fast. Some are what I call "mini-movies", what I see is in motion. RV data comes how it does. Much is conceptual or audio or kinesthetic for me etc., but the symbolic stuff is usually flash- vivid visual. PJ

#16?5

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Thu Dec 5, ?00? ?:06 am Subject: Re: Re: experiecubg movement docsavagebill Hi PJ, I'm kind of tickled that my last two sessions at Farview both had noticeable movement in them. I think I had movement before.. but never actually wrote it down as movement..now I think I will recognize it unless my SC descides to change again..G. Movement for me tends to appear as if I'm getting separate slightly different frames of the same scene and is very "jumpy" from one frame to the other.And can be mistaken for slightly different views of the same scene..But now I recognize this frame "jumpiness" as movement. Others might look for that if they don't already. First session target was a honeycomb with bees on it. I saw a blob of tannish brown with symetrical round things packed side by side.( the comb as it turned out? ). but the image kept jumping and changing slightly ..which I interpreted as the round things flowing ( like a mud flow ofpacked balls? ), but when I saw the feedback I recognized it as the bees buzzing and flapping around on top of the honeycomb. It really made me feel like I was there much more than a static session. The next target was a very high bridge.. over a greenish brown river. I saw a mess of greenish brown (from a height? ) and "knew" it was slowly jittering around. It was moving so slowly , it was difficult to detect..but it had a feeling again of the scene jumping very slightly as the flow lines jumped as if it was milling and flowing around... slowly as viewed from a height, which it was. Again felt much more like I was there, even though my analysis was a huge crowd of people dressed in green and brown milling around..G Good Viewing All, Bill

#16?7

From: "intuitwolf" Date: Thu Dec 5, ?00? 10:37 am Subject: Re: cartoon crash site intuitwolf > > Terri wrote > > (IMO? ) It's not symbology (that's flat out lazy? ), [snip] > PJ wrote > The idea that data described as 'symbolic' is merely 'lazy' is pretty > hilarious. I'll have to think about that. It might be true. It > strikes me more as an avoidance of wanting to deal with one's inner > self "The physical world that you recognize is made up of invisible patterns. These patterns are "plastic," in that while they exist, their final form is a matter of probabilities directed by consciousness. Your senses perceive these patterns in their own ways." Session 803, p.?9 , The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events > PJ wrote > RV data comes how it does. And no data is 'lesser' data - but some of it comes with more wrapping :-? ) and has to be dealt with appropriately while in session and then understood for future reference. Whereas Don may get Snoopy and the Red Baron as an indicator for an aircraft, I'm more likely to get a sensation of a very ominous shadow hanging over me -- childhood associations are very strong and last a lifetime. Either way, we can declare our 'symbol' - because it is an unwrapped data ball with a name - as AOL and move back to describing the data in discrete patterns. Shelia

#16?8

Date: Wed Dec 4, ?00? 11:?3 pm Subject: Re: cartoon crash site a_healey56 Hi Terri, I don't think you're responding to me, but I'll reply back anyway. > Shadow lands.. > That about sums it up. Mind noise. Static. Mind noise and static vary in degree between people, and within the individual from one time to another, due to a number of factors. > I would have to ask.. are you going for visuals. > an do you trust them? I definitely expect visuals, because I've always received them. I think that in the physical world we live in - and for what we typically remote view - that visual perception almost always has preeminence over the other senses. An accurate picture is worth a million low-level descriptions in most instances. I'm new at this, and overall, I don't trust my visuals at the moment because, admittedly, the majority don't have anything to do with the feedback. It's still a surprise when they do. But I do think that there must be a way to distinguish between the accurate and the imagined, and to eliminate or keep to a minimum the bad ones. I assume that different people are inclined toward being more sensitive to information from different senses. (I'm going to post a new topic in a day or two that's related to this.? ) > Some folks in the past were/are under the impression that RV > especially ERV is like a streaming 3-d technicolor video. > (3-d visuals are rarely spot on? ). In my experience, it can be. But flash visuals are much more common for me, and every time I've hit the target, it's been with a flash visual (which sometimes aren't really a flash, they can last several seconds? ), not a video. You have to really be alert to get a good look and remember the detail. > Most of RV is highly sensual as in you/your sense, (accurate? ) > flash images can come in at the end but rarely. Every time I've had an accurate visual, I've been pretty deep into it for quite a while. > I often say it's feeling (sensual? ) around like a blind > person.. that about sums it up. All other senses are > heightened except for visual. Why would all senses except visual be heightened? > Have you ever "closed" your whatever eyes in session and > felt/heard/smelled/tasted/etc... crawled around the site > "blind" inch by inch? It's a good practice IMO not to > mention experience, highly disciplined. It's hard, a > shock to the mind/opener. I've never tried this, but I'll have to try it soon. I have heard people talk about moving around a target in various ways, but it's never dawned on me to consciously give it a try during an RV session. Any tips from your own experience on how to go about it? I suspect that a person could just declare to themselves that they're going to do it, and do it (Kind of like inducing a lucid dream? ). David

#1636

From: aeonblueau8008... Date: Thu Dec 5, ?00? 3:58 pm Subject: Re: cartoon crash site terri8008 David... a few years back.. didn't I take apart a few of your sessions and replace the visual with descriptive? Wot did you think of those or that? style.. Sometimes the visual gets the best of, or intentions. That's the way you approach your RV (meditative mental imaging?? ) seems to be your way or skill. Every once ina while replace the visual with solid descriptive and see what comes, or develops or what would have developed. Ban the images till the end, try that. "seeing" blindly.. duuno how I started that prolly forced by monitor (as a lesson? ). There was a tgt, the Atocha (sunken ship, Keys Fl.? ) I think I had to keep going back 3 times (practice descriptives? ) and there was flat nothing else to do or report so I just started literally feeling my way, allowing no other senses to come in, it was like inch by boring inch (describe describe describe? ). I kept jumping around the time line also which was confusing for me, but past was more attractive. I remember saying (declaring? ) there was bird pooh there.. monitor said.. "how do ya know- did you taste it?". That rattled me, the last thing on my non-mind was taste and bird pooh never crossed it. I can't say I "saw" bird pooh.. what I got was a particular color then a texture and consistency. That equaled bird droppings, fresh, so I said yes there is bird pooh and i'm not tasting it. (aka knowns? ). anyway visuals on that.. confusing.. I kept flashing a harbor setting.. loud, bustling activity carriages and horses .. one time(visual? ) it was dark night cold water and I seemed stuck between the dock and a ship, hating the water at night and under the distinct impression I could easily be squished afraid there were barnacles and live slimmy creatures on the wood.. I AOLed SF Bay. Another was persistent one.. a cross/steeple on and old building and a ships mast, a cross between the two. An out of session visual that "came" in a day when I was not in session was a light house.. I saw it as clear and real as if I were really there, I was positive that was my tgt I had been laboring over. (none of that was actually 'my target'.. may have related to but was not? ) Various tgts can teach or show you various lesson or develop skills. I tend to taste color and smell nationalities .. a few of the quirks I have developed or surfaced, maybe it's evolved via practice. My hearings not good takes an explosion to rock me(in session? ). There is a tgt.. I won't say what it is.. but you have to search the darkness, the pitch blackness. You search and find then move from that, or you don't search and your stuck. It was hard and I was lost, there was nothing there.. but then there was and I don't know what 'sense' found it, persistence probably.. more of a knowing(to know a partial angle? ) feeling as there was absolutely no visual. This part of the target felt more like a void space-devoid, black on black nothingness. If I am getting nothing off signal or nothing more, I blind myself and sense the/for peripheral, that usually gets a foot in the door- gets it rolling again. There's usually stuff al over, just depends on how you look at it. All the best ~~Terri pjrv : Messages : 1590-1677 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1590?? ) ?
?3:15:51
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1590

Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 6:19 pm Subject: cartoon crash site a_healey56 The subconscious seems to work in mysterious ways... Don, why on earth do you (or anyone else? ) suppose your subconscious (assuming it's your SC that feeds you the information? ) would give you Snoopy when it could just as well give you the real thing? Dave ---------------------------- Moderator's note: Dave, if anybody really knew the answer to that question, we would have solved the greatest mystery in all RV! Why, when I have a guy in a space suit with black-front helmet, do I see a person with a hat on and face painted black?! I mean I've SEEN a space suit before after all, and I even saw the freakin' target when I put it in the pool, so why the symbology?? I am beginning to wonder if some of it might relate to the 'body' experience vs. 'visual' experience. E.g., if I had seen a space suit *in person*, would I then have seen it in the session? I just don't know. I hope you and Don can figure it out for us. :-? ) PJ

#1598

From: "Eva" Date: Tue Dec 3, ?00? 7:3? pm Subject: Why aols happen..?? k9caninek9 Well I don't know if this is the magic answer of the universe, but it's the best I've heard yet. According to LYn (and probably partially filtered by my interpretatiion of what Lyn says? ), what happens is that all those little tiny impressions of tiny little elements of the target arrive into your subconscious from "the place/part that knows the answer" The subconscious gets the impressions and tries to package them in a way you can consciously understand them. Sometimes the packaging is better than other times. The packaging is basically in the form of aols and more complex ideas. That is one reason why breaking down the aols into descriptors may help, because you are breaking our the original bits of data according to this theory. As the subconscious gets more practice doing this, it gets better at assimilating the various bits of info. For instance, it starts to get a better grip on what bits of info should be packaged into a single unit and what bits should be packaged as a different unit (ie people vs trees, etc? ). Also, it learns to use more and more bits of info in each package, thus makign the packages more and more accurate. But still, the info is being assembled without instructions so the end result tends to be a bit off and have a few pieces missing. I actually am very interested in this idea and think it explains a lot that other theories do not explain as well as not seeming to have any evidential holes in it. I may have even added some of my own stuff on top of the Lyn version of the theory. -E

#1605

From: "Rich Braswell" Date: Wed Dec 4, ?00? 10:44 am Subject: Re: cartoon crash site rvrichrb Hi P.J. and Dave, Since we're speculating here about why we get symbols instead of 'real' bits and pieces, I'll toss an idea into the ring :-? ) If the 'structure' of our memories has anything to do with this, maybe our sub has to deal with what it is able to 'get its hands on', so to speak, and only has access to specific portions of the 'memory structure' while it is attempting to gather the info we're requesting. Another way to think about it is this. If our sub (which apparently has one foot in this dimension and one foot 'somewhere else'? ), is structured completely differently than our memory bank, it may be like placing a giant bubble among the aisles in a large department store, and our sub can only traverse along the surface of the bubble gathering up whatever it can to help us. I.e."hats and black paint" instead of helmets. Food for thought :-? ) Rich

#1607

From: "Eva" Date: Wed Dec 4, ?00? 1?:01 pm Subject: Re: cartoon crash site k9caninek9 It's possible, but why would that be? YOu can do the same target many times and get different aols and info every time. WHy would that be? I guess one of the probs of speculating is we don't have much data to go on. -E > Rich wrote: > structured completely differently than our memory bank, it may be > like placing a giant bubble among the aisles in a large department > store, and our sub can only traverse along the > surface of the bubble > gathering up whatever it can to help us. I.e."hats and black paint" > instead of helmets.

#1609

Date: Wed Dec 4, ?00? 1:19 pm Subject: Re: cartoon crash site dennanm > Eva wrote: > YOu can do the same target > many times and get different aols > and info every time. WHy would > that be? I guess one of the probs > of speculating is we don't have > much data to go on. Yeah. Hey that was a pun, sort of. ;-? ) As Joe suggests the more developed the skill/talent of the viewer, the more info and the more intensity and degree of info they are likely to get, this might suggest merely that we are babes in the woods when it comes to 'unfurling it from ourselves'. Like with art -- maybe my "person with hat and face painted black" is sort of the "stick figure" version of what for someone more advanced would be a lot closer to "realism" for a spacesuit in what they perceive? As another thought, and it strikes me this is has some merit worth considering suddenly -- it's a variant on Joe's comments and some already made here, but fleshed out a bit: Maybe the reason I didn't get the space suit is because my brain had not properly connected with the concept of SPACE. It had the info "person"; it had the info that the person could SEE through the blackness covering their face (I noticed the eyes looking at me? ); it had the info that there was something on their head, and that the face was covered in blackness. Conveniently, symbolically/dream-like, it also had "layers of meaning" which could've helped get more info I needed (e.g. I knew it was symbolism, and then sensed it was female and related to 'secrets'; 'a woman with her face painted in darkness = Nuit, space, the night sky, in MY book anyway -- I realized that the minute the session was over? ). But as I did not YET have the concept of "space" it couldn't show me the space suit. And my mind tried so damn hard to get the concept of space through to me, lol, and I was just too dense for all its efforts. :-? ) But it's possible that if I had made the connection to the concept of SPACE, that suddenly all the info I already had, combined with that, would have shown me the space suit. Maybe information is always a 'composite' by its very nature. I used to perceive information as "geometries"; as a language of sorts that was mathematical/conceptual and "inside" me, some entities used to communicate in it, but the geometries WERE the things communicated, an ISness of sorts; somebody later told me this is written about historically now and then and is often called 'the Angelic language'. It's difficult to describe. But I felt at the time that this was the nature of reality and everything beyond that was creative interpretation, but the shape "was" the thing itself. Like everything was a fractal of light at some root form. Let's take an octagon for a very simplistic example -- easier to discuss than conceptual data. Every relevant part of the equation that could create an octagon - 8 sides, the area inside it, and the space outside it, to define it, is required: so let's say there are at least 10 pieces of info required to perceive the 'shape' of an octagon. What if the viewer had translated 6 info pieces from themselves but not 10? What if they are missing a couple sides or the area outside etc.? So they've got info, but not all the info, and if you don't have all the info you are NOT going to see an octagon -- who the hell knows what you'll see but it ain't gonna be the octagon without all those pieces. So then maybe some part of our mind trying to help with this translation game looks for a way, using the pieces we have and our memories, to put it together. The viewer might get the concept, "A road sign." And later wonder WHAT the hell that had to do with anything. Well, maybe that was the brain saying, "The most common association I have with an octagon is a stop sign." So it puts forth the stop sign as data, but the viewer -- just as inexpert at unfurling subconsciously-supplied helpful info as at unfurling somehow-supplied psychic info -- got PART of it -- the street sign concept. (And it could be the reason this was partially received was the simple matter of speed and memory: it comes so fast, they grab whatever is easiest to hold onto. Some people might have gotten the shape; they might, in another session; right then, the thing left in the grasp once the data flew past was 'street sign'.? ) And on feedback one wonders what the hell street signs have to do with the target, which may or may not, from the perspective of feedback, even clearly show the octagon shape the brain picked up. Had the viewer gone with the concept they got of street-sign, into the wrong aol-impression, they could be led totally astray. So if we are missing some part of the composite -- a piece of the overall information puzzle -- then we simply cannot use the complete picture which requires all those pieces, perhaps. So we use the next best thing -- from a person with face painted black and hat, instead of spacesuit with black-front helmet; or Don's snoopy flyer and then falling black things, for the plane crash. Maybe there was some critical piece of data that he didn't have to give him the 'realistic' picture. For example, if it was a passenger/commercial jet with lots of people, maybe some of that info he didn't yet have -- but he had the plane part, and some degree of the getting shot down part (Snoopy is always flying in his war with the Red Baron? ). Maybe had the session continued and he realized there was actual death involved, or lots of people involved, that data piece(s? ) would have filled in the 'gap' and allowed the more literal concept of a modern/real plane crash to come through. Maybe that's just a matter of time, extended or repeated session, state of mind, whatever. Snoopy is always in the newspaper... plane crashes are heard about on or in the news. I know that's a stretch but I'm just trying to example that the info he DID get, may have CARRIED IN IT the missing piece he needed to connect the pieces he had to the ones he didn't yet have. Maybe like children learning to draw, we have a stick-man version of data; or like children learning to read, we have a see-Jane-run version of data. Not because there is vast symbolic meaning in the stick man or some cosmic reason for why we thought Jane was running.... but just plain and simple that we aren't yet developed enough to get more data, more subtleties, more conceptual 'glue', for the advanced portrait or novel. This actually makes me feel more relaxed, as a way of interpreting the situation; because to be honest, the thought of ever figuring out what all this symbolism means prior to feedback is a little daunting considering how confusing much of it is until feedback brings context. Maybe the primary thing to learn from symbolism isn't what it means literally in the target, e.g., the person, hat and black face. Maybe it's simply that all symbolism "carries within it the seed of the PIECE THAT IS MISSING" that we need, to get the literal understanding of something at the target. I mentioned in my symbolic data the 'woman (I thought it was female? ) of secrets (I got that concept? ), with face painted in darkness' = Nuit/space/night sky; the symbology might seem literal, but it carried the seed of the "rest" of the info I needed. I don't know that I'm getting anywhere at all here but I feel better about it, LOL! PJ

#1613

Date: Wed Dec 4, ?00? 1:30 pm Subject: Re: cartoon crash site dennanm (P.S. I know it was a plane crash not shot down. I just meant the concept of crashing or dying or whatever. Sorry for the wording.? ) > but he had the plane part, and some degree of > the getting shot down part (Snoopy is always > flying in his war with the Red Baron? ).

#1677

Date: Sun Dec 8, ?00? 3:51 pm Subject: Re: cartoon crash site k9caninek9 Yeah, that's basically along the lines of what I was saying except that it may not be that you didn't have he concept of space, only that you may have sorted it wrong. YOu may have sorted it with a diff concept, or maybe it clashed with an early concept that you had already formed and so you blocked it out without realizing it. That's why I think so many rv methods talk about trying to keep as consciously neutral as you can about the target impressions. If you pounce on some impression and it's a bit off, then you can accidentally block out all the impressions that clash with it but are actually correct. And so that is why I personally think that in CRV, they teach you to ignore contradictions during the session. If you are going down the wrong track, then the contradiction is often the correct thing. But if you are right on track, then you theoretically, you would still be on the right track. In reality though, I do find sometimes that I will be right in the beginning and then later fall off the wagon. Or other times, I will be wrong in the beginning and then later contraditions will be the correct stuff. I am hoping that as i practice, I will get better at delving into the details and will be less likely to fall off the wagon. Recently I did a long session on a magnified view of a dental drill bit. I was really happy that I actually managed to do 15 pages on the dang thing and still be on the right track as that's the kind of target one can easily do one page of good stuff and then totally screw up. So at least I know I can do it and now I just have to do it more! -E --- In pjrv...ps.com, "PJ Gaenir" > As Joe suggests the more developed the skill/talent of the viewer, > the more info and the more intensity and degree of info they are > likely to get, this might suggest merely that we are babes in the > woods when it comes to 'unfurling it from ourselves'. > > Like with art -- maybe my "person with hat and face painted black" is > sort of the "stick figure" version of what for someone more advanced > would be a lot closer to "realism" for a spacesuit in what they > perceive? > > As another thought, and it strikes me this is has some merit worth > considering suddenly -- it's a variant on Joe's comments and some > already made here, but fleshed out a bit: > > Maybe the reason I didn't get the space suit is because my brain had > not properly connected with the concept of SPACE. > > It had the info "person"; it had the info that the person could SEE > through the blackness covering their face (I noticed the eyes looking > at me? ); it had the info that there was something on their head, and > that the face was covered in blackness. > > Conveniently, symbolically/dream-like, it also had "layers of > meaning" which could've helped get more info I needed (e.g. I knew it > was symbolism, and then sensed it was female and related > to 'secrets'; 'a woman with her face painted in darkness = Nuit, > space, the night sky, in MY book anyway -- I realized that the minute > the session was over? ). > > But as I did not YET have the concept of "space" it couldn't show me > the space suit. And my mind tried so damn hard to get the concept of > space through to me, lol, and I was just too dense for all its > efforts. :-? ) But it's possible that if I had made the connection to > the concept of SPACE, that suddenly all the info I already had, > combined with that, would have shown me the space suit. > > Maybe information is always a 'composite' by its very nature. I used > to perceive information as "geometries"; as a language of sorts that > was mathematical/conceptual and "inside" me, some entities used to > communicate in it, but the geometries WERE the things communicated, > an ISness of sorts; somebody later told me this is written about > historically now and then and is often called 'the Angelic > language'. It's difficult to describe. But I felt at the time that > this was the nature of reality and everything beyond that was > creative interpretation, but the shape "was" the thing itself. Like > everything was a fractal of light at some root form. > > Let's take an octagon for a very simplistic example -- easier to > discuss than conceptual data. Every relevant part of the equation > that could create an octagon - 8 sides, the area inside it, and the > space outside it, to define it, is required: so let's say there are > at least 10 pieces of info required to perceive the 'shape' of an > octagon. > > What if the viewer had translated 6 info pieces from themselves but > not 10? What if they are missing a couple sides or the area outside > etc.? So they've got info, but not all the info, and if you don't > have all the info you are NOT going to see an octagon -- who the hell > knows what you'll see but it ain't gonna be the octagon without all > those pieces. > > So then maybe some part of our mind trying to help with this > translation game looks for a way, using the pieces we have and our > memories, to put it together. > > The viewer might get the concept, "A road sign." And later wonder > WHAT the hell that had to do with anything. Well, maybe that was the > brain saying, "The most common association I have with an octagon is > a stop sign." So it puts forth the stop sign as data, but the > viewer -- just as inexpert at unfurling subconsciously-supplied > helpful info as at unfurling somehow-supplied psychic info -- got > PART of it -- the street sign concept. > > (And it could be the reason this was partially received was the > simple matter of speed and memory: it comes so fast, they grab > whatever is easiest to hold onto. Some people might have gotten the > shape; they might, in another session; right then, the thing left in > the grasp once the data flew past was 'street sign'.? ) > > And on feedback one wonders what the hell street signs have to do > with the target, which may or may not, from the perspective of > feedback, even clearly show the octagon shape the brain picked up. > Had the viewer gone with the concept they got of street-sign, into > the wrong aol-impression, they could be led totally astray. > > So if we are missing some part of the composite -- a piece of the > overall information puzzle -- then we simply cannot use the complete > picture which requires all those pieces, perhaps. So we use the next > best thing -- from a person with face painted black and hat, instead > of spacesuit with black-front helmet; or Don's snoopy flyer and then > falling black things, for the plane crash. > > Maybe there was some critical piece of data that he didn't have to > give him the 'realistic' picture. For example, if it was a > passenger/commercial jet with lots of people, maybe some of that info > he didn't yet have -- but he had the plane part, and some degree of > the getting shot down part (Snoopy is always flying in his war with > the Red Baron? ). Maybe had the session continued and he realized > there was actual death involved, or lots of people involved, that > data piece(s? ) would have filled in the 'gap' and allowed the more > literal concept of a modern/real plane crash to come through. Maybe > that's just a matter of time, extended or repeated session, state of > mind, whatever. Snoopy is always in the newspaper... plane crashes > are heard about on or in the news. I know that's a stretch but I'm > just trying to example that the info he DID get, may have CARRIED IN > IT the missing piece he needed to connect the pieces he had to the > ones he didn't yet have. > > Maybe like children learning to draw, we have a stick-man version of > data; or like children learning to read, we have a see-Jane-run > version of data. Not because there is vast symbolic meaning in the > stick man or some cosmic reason for why we thought Jane was > running.... but just plain and simple that we aren't yet developed > enough to get more data, more subtleties, more conceptual 'glue', for > the advanced portrait or novel. > > This actually makes me feel more relaxed, as a way of interpreting > the situation; because to be honest, the thought of ever figuring out > what all this symbolism means prior to feedback is a little daunting > considering how confusing much of it is until feedback brings context. > > Maybe the primary thing to learn from symbolism isn't what it means > literally in the target, e.g., the person, hat and black face. Maybe > it's simply that all symbolism "carries within it the seed of the > PIECE THAT IS MISSING" that we need, to get the literal understanding > of something at the target. I mentioned in my symbolic data > the 'woman (I thought it was female? ) of secrets (I got that concept? ), > with face painted in darkness' = Nuit/space/night sky; the symbology > might seem literal, but it carried the seed of the "rest" of the info > I needed. > > I don't know that I'm getting anywhere at all here but I feel better > about it, LOL! > > PJ

#1616

From: "Rich Braswell" Date: Wed Dec 4, ?00? 6:00 pm Subject: Re: cartoon crash site rvrichrb Hi Eva, You've raised an excellent question, which made me realize that we are constantly expanding our memories with each passing moment. This would have the effect of constantly modifying and shifting the information in our memory banks. If this is true, then even if the sub were to come back to precisely the same location for that particular target, some of the information it 'got its hands on' previously would no longer be in the same location. Not unlike reseting the items on the shelves, adding new shelves, or adding new aisles to the department store. Rich pjrv : Messages : 1630-1696 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1630?? ) ?
?3:17:4?
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1630

From: greenmn900... Date: Thu Dec 5, ?00? 10:?6 am Subject: Re: Re: cartoon crash site greenmn900... Shelia, > you wrote: > "Whereas Don may get Snoopy and the Red Baron as an indicator for an > aircraft, I'm more likely to get a sensation of a very ominous shadow > hanging over me -- childhood associations are very strong and last a > lifetime. Either way, we can declare our 'symbol' - because it is an > unwrapped data ball with a name - as AOL and move back to describing > the data in discrete patterns." I prefer to declare it specifically as "a symbol" because I don't feel that any analyzing took place - at least not consciously - in getting this kind of data. But I still do the same thing you do, I go back and work at pulling out the details of the general subject provided to me by the symbol. Best regards, don

#1641

From: aeonblueau8008... Date: Thu Dec 5, ?00? 4:57 pm Subject: Re: Re: cartoon crash site terri8008 hmmmm. I'm not good with symbology. So, yep, I don't comprehend it. Data or information has to be pretty much in my face.. maybe I don't think deep enough, or just won't take the time, it's not my cup of tea and there can be so many interpretations, in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes I get the yellow ochre in sessions.. like a faded photograph, It's like I pass thru that level. It must indicate something but I've yet to figure it and the tgts never resemble each other. I used to get the nose itch at a point in session, used to drive me crazy till I dropped deeper, past/below physical body sensations. I got to thinking.. I was like sniffing out the tgt.. and when I was on site my nose itched.. I figured it was symbolic. Well it wasn't symbolic.. I was on site.. and the itchy nose when in session is not uncommon at all. But as Karl wrote .. > In my experience, the subconscious is much closer > to the realm of meaning and significance than is > the conscious rational mind. Yeah that makes sense. But i still don't get it.. but i'm dense. (the spoon doesn't bend? ) I had a dream the other night. It kept coming in small bits, episodes, scenarios yet all connected. I recall it because I was with my mother and father (they were much younger.. I dunno what that symbolizes? ) we were driving down a road in the middle of nowhere.. and the sky brightened up, the clouds parted, rainbow colors.. there were 3 white clouds in a triangle formation, they started moving straight for us. I excitedly checked with my dad.. if he could see the same, which he confirmed. I "knew" we were watching UFO's, I was afraid the show would end all too soon. (I don't think it was symbolic of an abduction experience? ) I woke up. I knew the dream came from "Taken" which is showing on the SCI FI channel currently. The dream in connected episodes.. I was disappointed that Taken is in episodes.. I am a sporadic TV watcher. My mind or me was still working the movie.. often in dreams I am working my computer graphics programs experiments with different lighting presets and such. Maybe I'm too analytical or a workaholic, artist. When my alarm went off this morn I kept hitting the snooze button, when it would buzz it was coming to me in different colors each time. I worked a bit with a viewer that regularly incorporated symbology into their sessions. eg.. purple in session meant west wind or something like this. Viewer started off very well in session but symbolized and self cued her way ? states and few centuries off tgt. I just didn't get. I don't think RV is full of symbology.. I'd rather have it just descriptive. But I do work it for myself first for the challenge and experience, as you may also, and enjoy all things symbolic.. to each her own. Dirty signal.. an ill tasked tgt, junky , too much, cluttered. I did some case work with someone who just used to send me a huge file. I can't work this way.. like what specifics am I after or what to get/on. I got things like desks/offices.. files.. paper work people, business, floundering all over the place. I finally sent the files to a tasker and asked for something to lock on to, it was just quicker and cleaner. All the best ~T~

#1650

From: Karl Boyken #1696
Date: Thu Dec 1?, ?00? 1:36 am Subject: the search for truth- was Re: cartoon crash site k9caninek9 If you ask me, it's the search that matters and makes you go over and over it until stuff kind of falls into place more and more. And at some point you realize you were asking the wrong questions because they were based on incorrect assumptions. But still it was the incorrect questions that brought you to that realization and so they served their purpose after all. -E > Karl B wrote: > What really goes against my grain is the > idea that it would be good to train the subconscious to > speak the language of the conscious mind. It may be > possible to do that, and it might make a person a > super RVer; I don't know. But it seems to me to be > like taking a poet and making him do technical writing.

#1666

From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m Date: Fri Dec 6, ?00? 7:09 pm Subject: Re: Re: cartoon crash site maliolana Aloha Karl, I agree about the words...sometimes they just pop out naturally and that is ok...but I don't try for them ...untill after diagrams/during session summary and this is when I get a bit more analytical... for the very reasons you stated...I agree ...it is my desire to train my conscious self to understand my subs symbolism...not the other way around...they are teaching me... Love & Light & Laughter Mali'o...aka...Dawna pjrv : Messages : 1733-1733 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1733?? ) ?
?3:18:54
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1733

From: Karl Boyken some point you realize you were asking the wrong questions because > they were based on incorrect assumptions. But still it was the > incorrect questions that brought you to that realization and so they > served their purpose after all. > -E -- Karl Boyken kboyken...t http://soli.inav.net/~kboyken/ We dance 'round in a ring and suppose, while the Secret sits in the middle and knows. --Robert Frost

// end archive

Top of Page

Remote Viewing info page spacer

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives


Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info