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 : 1530-1544 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1530?)
23:08:59
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1530

From: "PJ Gaenir" Date: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 pm Subject: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' dennanm I was talking to Joe about my thoughts on 'reasons for data' recently; specifically my wondering about, is psychology the reason that different people get different data or perceive it a different way, or is it something else - like the nature of the target, or the degree of skill? The reason I am interested - well there are a few. 1. If I don't get something really obvious in a target, I want to know why. Did I block it for some reason? 2. If I get something that is very minor, I want to know why. Does my mind think it's more important? 3. If I get data in a certain fashion, and X gets the same data but receives it in a totally different way - for example, one of us may 'personalize' and the other may not - why is that? I've always assumed all this was psychology. So I thought I'd ask him about it. After a few days it occurred to me that I ought to ask if I could post his comments on the private RV Oasis list. Others might find them useful as well. [begin private discussion] PJ: I'm curious, what do you believe is the reason people get whatever data they do and in the way they do? Joe: They get the data they get because it's what they will come to know is true. They get it in levels of detail according to their ability to translate what their mind is telling them. Sometimes the easiest details to translate are the ones that have the least amount of meaning relative to the target, or vice versa. There is no controlling what is translated until enough discipline is learned about one's mind and how to use it. PJ: I mean YES, if there IS data and it's pretty obvious or important, I can see all viewers might get it. But there could be 1001 things about a given target. Or there could be 3 major things -- but they could be perceived from totally different angles, perspectives, interpretations. What do you think causes the data and perspective we all experience uniquely, if not our own psychology? Joe: I'm not sure it's always one's psychology, although that might be a part of it, it also has to do with how far down in the weeds of details one is talented enough to differentiate about. That gives more range or breadth to the person's ability to describe specific elements of a target whether they are important or not. It's the complexity of the details that's being interpreted or screwed up. PJ: And if we create our own reality, isn't that hour of remote viewing part of our reality? Joe: Absolutely. So? If you are in neutral and open to whatever is supposed to be presented, then your personality should not have any bearing on what you receive. It only has a bearing on what you will then report. PJ: I'm not saying that for example, if something in a target is upsetting that it's "the viewer's fault", that's silly. But fault and understanding things are part of what our psychology and /or soul chose to experience are two different things. Joe: If I hate spiders and have perceptions of them in a remote viewing some say I might shy away from mentioning them, or taint the report with my own psychological reaction to them. But, in reality, I won't. I will simply report spiders, their color, shape, and type, and move on. When I remote view I'm not interested in how I feel about something, I'm just being a conduit through which information should flow that I can interpret. The psychological problems do get in the way however. If I'm asked to remote view something double blind and I get an impression a child is being molested or tortured or something, I put more effort into the response and usually do a much better job - simply because I think child molesters are sick and should be caught quickly. PJ: In order to understand why my psychology "didn't get the person in the target" or "got this but not that" or "got that thing in this certain way", I HAVE to work on the concept that what, and how, my mind perceives and interprets, is an issue of my unique mind, and part of what I am working to understand. Joe: That's what I've been saying. But, you should also be working on not letting your feelings (psychological or otherwise) get between you and the information you are translating. PJ: If I got a star burst for 'energy' that isn't because energy in the target "made" me get a star burst and "makes" someone else get a lightning bolt and another misses it entirely, it's because that's how my mind has chosen, for the moment, to interpret or symbolize or allegorize 'energy'. Joe: That's correct. So? It still has no psychological import to you beyond that, or it shouldn't. PJ: If I view a target and pick up way too much "personally" of someone getting murdered (as I have picked up little details like someone's hands aching horribly and him being exhausted, for example, then I assume maybe I could actually at some point perceive something more vivid and negative), I would assume that for whatever reason, my mind chose to tune into that aspect. I mean I could have tuned into the killer instead. I could have perceived it all differently, separately, distantly. If I experienced someone plunging a knife into me- as-target somehow, I have to conclude that for whatever reason, some part of me chose that experience. Joe: No. You simply described the easiest issue within the target to be translated - the emotion of dying - which relevant to a dying event, is pretty significant to the event and pretty simple to translate. The killer is going to be far more complex and difficult to deal with. You should by knowing someone is dying already be reaching out for the information relevant to the killer or reason for death. PJ: Yes, the target's a bitch for sure, but how can one not operate on the assumption what/ how data is perceived is based on the viewer's psychology more than the nature of the target? Joe: Nature of the target drives all, everything else is talent based, based on practice, based on learning and habit forming. [end private discussion] Reply | Forward

#1531

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Mon Nov 25, 2002 7:16 pm Subject: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' docsavagebill Hi PJ, Ha Ha... so much for our psychology theories..G. It does make sense to me what he says.. although I always am ready for factor X also. I don't successfully view a beautiful female target face more often than any other target faces even though I might emotionally be likely too. I tend to see first whatever translates into my limited skill set easiest just like Joe said. Which probably would be the shape of her hair line.. or her teeth etc.. .. ..So does than mean our "viewing self" is sort of robotic and without emotions or personality??? Bill ------------------------- Moderator's note: Reminds me of after the 1/94 northridge quake, everyone felt like the ground was shaking almost constantly, and this psychologist came on the radio telling us how this was normal, it was just our minds, and would go away soon, very soothing. Turns out we were having thousands of aftershocks. So we weren't just imagining it. So much for psychology. ;-) -- PJ Reply | Forward

#1535

From: "Scott Ellis" Date: Mon Nov 25, 2002 7:04 pm Subject: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' scottrver Hi PJ, I know you've stated many times that you think psychology is everything in RV. I can only comment on my own limited experience which is that I don't think psychology plays much of a role, if any, in my perceiving data about the target. My whole methodology is an attempt to become detached and egoless. To me Joe's responses seem to be saying the same thing. (I have considered that psychology might be a possible factor in displacement - but of course that's pure conjecture and is more than likely wrong.) However, I would imagine that there are a multitude of ways that different people process the data received and so it may be for you that your psychology plays a much bigger part in that process than what I experience. So your hypothesis might be true, but not for everyone - or even only true for you because you think it's true. It might effectively be a methodology issue. Scott ------------------- Moderator's note: I believe that psychology is the primary issue in whether or not someone ends up a good viewer in the long run - for about 1001 reasons. It was the "uniqueness" of data per-person that made me think it was likely psychology that determined data, as psychology is the one thing different to all people. Joe says that affects how people report, but not how they get, and getting it is about talent, skill, practice, habits. He would know! -- so, that is a good answer, and gave me something new to think on. -- PJ Reply | Forward

#1537

From: "Scott Ellis" Date: Mon Nov 25, 2002 8:24 pm Subject: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' scottrver Hi PJ, > Moderator's note: I believe that psychology is the primary issue in whether or not someone ends up a good viewer in the long run - for about 1001 reasons. Well of course we have no way to know. I'm sure it's part of the determining factor, but genetics was certainly the primary issue in determining that I would never be a fast runner. Clearly, we are not all built the same biologically with regards to RV either. Scott -------------------------- Moderator's note: Right... especially if genetics greatly determine our psychology, in which case it's a chicken or egg thing I guess, lol! PJ Reply | Forward

#1544

From: "Scott Ellis" Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:51 am Subject: Psychology and viewing scottrver PJ, > Moderator's note: Right... especially if genetics greatly determine > our psychology, in which case it's a chicken or egg thing I guess So if psychology doesn't impact one's RV perceptions, then what are the real psychological aspects of RV for you? Is it within sessions or outside of sessions? Is it discipline vs. avoidance of practice sessions? Is it focussing to quiet your mind vs. internal dialog? (FWIW, talking with your ankle sounds like internal dialog to me PJ) Is it maintaining consistency of methodology or continually looking for a new variation? For me, psychological issues are primarily outside the act of viewing itself - everything leading up to my being in a meditative zone and everything after I'm out of it. Scott ------------------------ Moderator's note: Everything I guess. In his interviews, when asked what % of "psi talent" was likely psychology, Joe replied, "All of it." I think the primary thing is belief systems. After that is simply the psychology to make one disciplined and consistent with it - as well as to be able to deal with failure and success and the result of the belief system changes. I think you're right, it can almost be separated into 'the actual viewing time' and 'everything else'. Unfortunately unless everything else is going well, one may not 'get around to' - or be much good at - the viewing time. So I guess the overall process has to be life-wide, not just a set of rules. PJ pjrv : Messages : 1538-1551 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1538?)
23:09:36
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1538

From: greenmn900... Date: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:21 pm Subject: Re: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' greenmn900... Hi, This thread made me start thinking....You know how when you see a car accident, or watch a game, or even see a movie or listen to a song - Everyone seems to be especially aware of different facets of the same thing. The part of a movie that really strikes me may mean nothing to someone else, they didn't even really notice it. Or if I see a car wreck, I may cue in on the look on the driver's face just as the car was crashing. Some one else may view the same thing, from the same angle, and they really cued in on the sounds, the screeching tires, the slam!, and the crunch of metal. This other person may not have even been aware of the driver's face at all. Sometimes I wonder if RV is like that. It's NOT that we don't GET all the data. It's there. It's just that we don't key in on some points for some reason. The feeling I got from what Joe said about this is that we report on the things that are easiest for us to report on, the things we are familiar and comfortable with. Considering how fast RV information can fly by, it's gone in such a flash; it could be that we just grab and interpret the things that are easiest for us, which I would think would be the things we are most comfortable with interpreting, or maybe the things that we are familiar enough with, that we were able to grasp it more easily than other bits of data. I know that many, many times bits of data flash through my mind so fast, I'm left wondering, "What the hell was that?" And even if what seems to the same information flashes several more times, sometimes I just can't get it. Then later, when I see my feedback, I can sometimes see what was causing that reaction in me, I just couldn't recognize it. I think this one of the ways that practice makes such a big difference. We gain experience at grabbing more data out of the information bursts that are streaming by us (or through us). And I think is one of the areas where spending a lot of time with your feedback and thinking back to how you felt and what was going through your mind at different times during the session really helps too. You start to make the connections, even if they are very subtle and almost subliminal. This is probably why, when I've seemed to suddenly burst out of a plataeu and start getting better results and greater detail, I know I've learned something about RV and about how I process data; but I could never sit down and explain what I've learned, I can't put my finger on it. I just know that I have. In a lot of ways, RV must be the most frustrating thing anyone could ever set out to do. :-) Best Regards, Don Reply | Forward

#1540

From: "PJ Gaenir" Date: Mon Nov 25, 2002 11:23 pm Subject: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' dennanm Hi Don, > Everyone seems to be especially aware of > different facets of the same thing. Yeah, that's what I always found fascinating - in life, but definitely in RV. Kinda funny, because you see, I had this feeling like, if I missed a ton of data that was obvious, it must be because my subconscious was sabotaging me. Well actually this DOES happen, easily measured by the next few targets after a session I feel really good about! But on a per-target basis, it's really hard to be blaming your psychology for every imperfection. Joe's comments kind of clear it up for me. It isn't that a session sucks because I am sabotaging myself; it just sucks because I'm not any good at it, LOL! I mean, it's actually kind of nice to know that it is much more an issue of target and skill than psychology. I can handle the idea that I'm just not good enough yet. Dealing with feeling like some part of me is sabotaging the other part of me is a lot harder. > It's NOT that we don't GET all the > data. It's there. It's just that we > don't key in on some points for some > reason. Yeah... actually, I can often 'feel' data and 'almost hear' data that I just can't reach. It's like it's just... a few frequencies over... like a radio station that you can't quite tune in. It's intangible, as if it's hovering around my head in some amorpheous cloud form... not defined. > Considering how fast RV information > can fly by, Yeah. I have begun to notice lately how much of my data is actually observed AFTER the fact. Like I'm sitting there trying to be 'open' to data and I suddenly go, "Oh - wait! What was that, a moment ago?!" - it takes a bit for it even to sink into my brain that I perceived something, then I have to rewind. > I think this one of the ways that > practice makes such a big difference. I hope so. > In a lot of ways, RV must be the > most frustrating thing anyone could ever set out to do. :-) Well it's on MY list. ;-) PJ Reply | Forward

#1547

From: "Glyn" Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 2:43 pm Subject: RE: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' gebega Hi PJ, Don, and all, > In a lot of ways, RV must be the > most frustrating thing anyone could ever set out to do. :-) > > Well it's on MY list. ;-) I think it's on everyone's list :-). I think I was told this when I was doing the on-line HRVG training last year, but wherever I got it it's a handy little practice tool. Get a magazine you haven't looked at a lot before (one with lots of pictures). Hold it closed in front of you with your eyes shut, then suddenly open it up and look directly at the first picture your eyes land on... but for only a split-second (open eyes, look, close eyes...*really* quickly). Then (while eyes still closed fold down or mark the page so you don't lose it...unless you want to try matching up later :-)), get some paper and a pen and draw with as much detail as you can what you have seen, and write descriptive words as well if you want. *But* before you do that, wait one minute so that the 'after-image' in your working memory has a chance to fade....it's a heck of a lot harder then. Mean aren't I? LOL! Very valuable for the visual memory, as well as honing up the descriptive powers :-). I was horribly shocked how little I remembered when I first tried that; especially after waiting for a while before attempting to re-visualise. I'm not a lot better at it now, but I should practice it more. Makes me wonder in fact whether having a photographic memory would be an advantage when doing RV and getting 'visuals'. If you get the chance PJ, please ask Joe if he has a good 'visual' memory. Would be interesting, though I agree that some viewers will concentrate on getting different types of impression; not necessarily visual. Regards, Glyn ----------------------- Moderator's note: Yes. I don't have to ask him that. He has one of the most exceptional memory abilities I think I've ever encountered - visual, audio, anything. Only person I remember being equally impressed with was an 8th degree blackbelt zen priest. ;-) Separate note on magazine pictures -- I am thinking about our conversation on 'what' data we get and 'how' we interpret it, and why -- I wonder if Playboy pics would remain clearer in someone's mind than say, an ad for a truck. LOL. Hey, this could make memory exercises the most fun part of RV for some people! ;-) PJ Reply | Forward

#1542

From: "David Humphries" Date: Mon Nov 25, 2002 11:40 pm Subject: Re: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' a_healey56 Hi PJ, > Yeah... actually, I can often 'feel' data and 'almost hear' data that > I just can't reach. It's like it's just... a few frequencies over... > like a radio station that you can't quite tune in. It's intangible, > as if it's hovering around my head in some amorpheous cloud form... > not defined. I've felt like this the last few weeks...it's frustrating! > Yeah. I have begun to notice lately how much of my data is actually > observed AFTER the fact. Like I'm sitting there trying to be 'open' > to data and I suddenly go, "Oh - wait! What was that, a moment > ago?!" - it takes a bit for it even to sink into my brain that I > perceived something, then I have to rewind. I hate it when that happens! Regular meditation is a good way to learn to be better about paying attention and not missing those quick bursts of data. > > In a lot of ways, RV must be the > > most frustrating thing anyone could ever set out to do. :-) > Well it's on MY list. ;-) Yeah, why are we all so compelled to put ourselves through this? ;-) Dave Reply | Forward

#1543

From: "Elizabeth Hambrook" Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 5:55 am Subject: Re: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' ozblueriver > Don was saying....... > Everyone seems to be especially aware of different > facets of the same thing. The part of a movie that > really strikes me may mean nothing to someone else, > they didn't even really notice it. Hi Don and PJ, This reminds me of an excersise I had to do while taking a course. A chair was put in the middle of the room. The chairs we sat in circled the empty chair. We were all told to sketch the empty chair and hand in our drawing. The point was that although we were all describing exactly the same chair, under exactly the same conditions, none of us could ever see it from exactly the same perspective as anyone else. A similar reason must also apply to why we get different info from the same RV target. Even if it is as simple as what point in 'space' we are viewing it from. If the target is seen from one angle you may miss seeing a certain aspect of it or a particular aspect may stand out just that bit clearer. Where you view something from can change what you see dramatically. Cheers Liz ---------------------- Moderator's note: Good point Liz, and an interesting thought. It leads me to wonder, is our "vantage point" in RV as arbitrary as everything else? Are we really getting the "energy" of the entire target - more cosmic info than we could assimilate - and is our 'vantage point' itself as much an arbitrary, what-is-easiest-for-that-person's-mind issue as "data" itself? Is 'vantage point' itself merely information? PJ Reply | Forward

#1545

From: greenmn900... Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 8:18 am Subject: Re: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' greenmn900... Hi, > You wrote: > "Yeah. I have begun to notice lately how much of my data is actually > observed AFTER the fact. Like I'm sitting there trying to be 'open' > to data and I suddenly go, "Oh - wait! What was that, a moment > ago?!" - it takes a bit for it even to sink into my brain that I > perceived something, then I have to rewind" I read a small book by an old spiritualist, can't remember his name (Leadbeter, maybe) but I've still got the book around here somewhere. The book was about telepathy, reading the aura, scrying, and psychometry. It was very good and I immediately noted that a lot of things about psi we discuss today and sometimes seem to rediscover, they were well-aware of in the 1920s. One of the things he discussed at length is the way psi data often comes in such quick, fleeting bursts that one of the major obstacles to being accurate is just catching the information as it speeds by. He went on to duscuss other problems like interpretation of symbols, etc. But he had a neat little game he called "Kim's Game" that he used to improve his ability to grab the data as it flows by. He would take a small tray, like a serving tray, and go over to a friends' house. Then he would ask his friend to walk through their house, picking up small objects - buttons, figurines, knick-knacks, maybe a piece of silverware, etc. and place them on the tray. He would have his back turned as his friend walked back into the room in which the author was standing, holding the tray. They would stand back-to-back and on a count of three, both would then turn a full circle until they were standing back-to-back again. As they turned, he would glance at the tray and try to quickly memorize every object that was there. Then he would start to list them. He said that he quickly began to improve at this little game and that by the time he had improved enough to be able to list 15 or so objects, he began to notice improvements in his psychometry reporting. He claimed that he eventually got to the point to where he could list around 25-30 items that had been placed on the tray. I used to do my own little version of this game with my wife. We would sit facing each other while she held a magazine. She would then turn the magazine over and back again very quickly. Then I'd try to tell her what was on the page. It seemed like this helped my RV reporting too, after awhile. Actually, I need to start doing this again. These days If I let more than 3-4 pieces of data build up in my memory, I'll start to forget some of them by the time I open my eyes to write it down. Best Regards, Don -------------------------- Moderator's note: I have a program called Ace Reader, which provides both 'Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP)' and 'Tachistoscopic Scroll Presentation (TSP)' tech in a speed reading program. I actually got it eons ago specifically to practice super-fast speed reading, which I used to do a lot of when young, to the point that when I stopped, I'd have to sit there for about 30 seconds while every line of text 'hit my brain' bam-bam-bam-bam as my eyes were ahead of my brain. I had a really exceptional memory then, wonder if it was related. Anyway I have the program and thought it would be cool for wading through long internet articles, but I never use it. Maybe I should start! PJ Reply | Forward

#1548

From: "Glyn" Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 2:47 pm Subject: RE: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' gebega Hi Don, Just sent my mail about using a magazine and then read this from you. Now how's that for synchron...y (I can never spell that word :-) ?? Maybe our subs are trying to tell us something. Regards, Glyn > I used to do my own little version of this > game with my wife. We would sit > facing each other while she held a magazine.... Reply | Forward

#1549

From: "Sharon Webb" Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 2:57 pm Subject: Re: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' sharwebb_30512 Don, This technique sounds a lot like Jose Silva's suggestion for developing visualization in kids. Because children under twelve are more often in alpha, than beta (and children under six more often in theta), he said they do not need intensive training. Instead, he suggested that parents simply arrange seven or eight random items on a coffee table, have the child observe it briefly, and then ask the child to shut his/her eyes and 'see' the items there. He said to make a game of it and within a few weeks time the child would be expert at it. He said his Silva Method was not necessary for children if this technique was followed. Sharon sharwebb...net www.fractalus.com/sharon Reply | Forward

#1551

From: greenmn900... Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 12:58 pm Subject: Re: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' greenmn900... > glyn writes: > Just sent my mail about using a magazine and then read this from you. Now > how's that for synchron... Amazing! I guess this line of thought led us both in the same direction. Best regards, Don

// 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