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 : 1983-2034 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1983?)
23:36:43
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1983

From: greenmn900... Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 6:55 am Subject: Re: Personal notes about AOL/sessions greenmn900... Hi PJ, I agree with you that just about any data that reaches conscious awareness has been processed at least to some degree. I also don't think a word like "car" is anymore likely to be an aol than a word like "rough" if it is really a description of what you are perceiving - as oppsed to a conclusion based upon what you're perceiving. If I see a car, I see a car - it's not an aol. If I get information like "metal, moves, wheels, shiny," etc. and then write "car" it's obviously an aol. This is the reason aols tend to be more correct as you move deeper into the session, your conclusions are based upon more information than the conclusions at the beginning of the session are. I think some people tend to categorize anything that's very specific or complex as being an aol, when it may not be the case. What matters is whether you are putting down on paper ONLY what you perceive. The instant you aren't doing exactly that, it's an aol. I tend to get only specifics. You rarely will see general descriptives like "hard, smooth, wet," etc. in my sessions. So my sessions have more information like "house, barn, dog, human," etc. In a way, this is good - when I have a hit, it's undeniably a hit because the information is so specific. On the other hand, when I miss, it's very obvious that I've missed completely because the things I've put on paper are so specific that it's readily apparent when they are wrong. Avoiding aols is one reason I think sketching your perceptions is better than trying to find a descriptor that matches. You can sketch something without having to put a label on it and without having the slightest idea of what it might be. It keeps the left-brain from kicking-in as much, I think. But on the other hand, it's hard to sketch a perception like "hard", so you have to use descriptors as well, lol. Warm Regards, Don Reply | Forward

#1997

From: "David Humphries" Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:14 am Subject: Re: Personal notes about AOL/sessions a_healey56 > PJ wrote: > When they would guess a spot for a ship, they > would then say, 'MISS', as if (a) they already > knew that (then why did they guess it?!) and (b) > I then realized, it was because they DID NOT > WANT TO BE WRONG, and did not want ME to TELL them > that they were wrong -- so they wanted to be the > first to say THEMSELVES that they were wrong. > Then being right would be a pleasant surprise but > being wrong would not be difficult to deal with. Just another possibility - maybe they both semi-consciously realized that they had once again let their logic win out over their intuition. I do this all the time, and there is a feeling that accompanies doing it. With the help of doing many, many RV sessions this last year, most of which have either fast or immediate feedback, I'm becoming more aware of what the intuitive perception feels like, and learning to trust it more. > I didn't really do this until I started doing sessions for someone > else. I've never done sessions for anybody else before so I didn't > have that ego/fear-of-failure response. This is why doing practice sessions with public scrutiny is helpful for me. I won't do good on a session if there is not a really good purpose for doing it in my mind, which will lead to me having a certain degree of seriousness about doing it. Others may not feel this way, it may just be the discipline that I personally need. While we all probably have some degree of fear-of-failure, what motivates me even more is not wanting my data to contaminate everyone else's in the analysis on the FV targets (even though most of the sessions I've submitted on FV have been like inviting in the plague:-) Dave Reply | Forward

#1998

From: "Glyn" Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:37 pm Subject: RE: Personal notes about AOL/sessions gebega Hi Don, I agree with what you say about preferring an undeniable hit. Every time I do a session, I am painfully aware that if my list of descriptors is long enough, some of them are quite likely to match with elements of just about anything on the planet (and maybe off of it :-). Because of that, (when doing an ERV-type session anyway), I now try to keep it as brief as I can; say about ten minutes after getting 'centred' is about as long as I take nowadays. I know that some of the apparent matches in some of my past sessions have been because of going on too long and trying to 'force' things, and ending up with a huge list.......which is why I am now so hard on myself when judging my progress. We have to be our own sternest critics I think. In hot pursuit of the indisputable I need to move more towards specifics too, and I have occasionally made a 'leap' and labelled something, but when I have said things like 'dog' I have been wrong, so I prefer to stick with 'animal' for a while until I can hone things a little :-). It's going to be a slow process I think. The main thing now is to gain familiarity with my own subconscious, how my mind works....start to recognise when something is real data or conjecture. I have come to notice that I am better at picking some things up than others. However what is most important to me is that after 4 years I find that I am everso slightly more consistent in doing so. Small improvement then, but heartening ;-) Kind regards, Glyn Reply | Forward

#2009

From: greenmn900... Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:45 am Subject: Re: Personal notes about AOL/sessions greenmn900... Glyn, > You wrote: > "In hot pursuit of the indisputable I need to > move more towards specifics too, and I have > occasionally made a 'leap' and labelled something, > but when I have said things like 'dog' I have > been wrong, so I prefer to stick with 'animal' > for a while until I can hone things a little :-). > It's going to be a slow process I think. The > main thing now is to gain familiarity with my > own subconscious, how my mind works....start to > recognise when something is real data or conjecture" I know what you mean. I think this is something that improves with practice. From what I can tell, a persons' "accuracy" (the percentage of time they make target contact) never really improves much beyond the initial beginnings in RV. But the "reliability" (the amount of correct vs. incorrect information and the amount and degree of detail) improves a lot. You remindeded me of a session I did about a year ago for my sister and her husband. My little sister gets premonitions a lot but her husband always laughs at her and tells her that ESP is all BS. Now, some of my family had seen my RV work but my sister's husband never had, so she asked me to do a session to prove to him the psi is real. I warned her that I miss the target up to 40% of the time and so, they should give me a shot at 4 targets and that, in at least one of those, I should get a pretty good hit. As it turned out, I got lucky and nailed the first one, but this is how it went: The target was a picture from a magazine of a little baby girl with black hair holding flowers in front of her, looking at them. They had put the picture in an envelope but they didn't cover up the back side and I ended up getting stuff from both sides of the page. (On the back of the page was a picture of some kind of diaper-dispensing thing, I'm not sure what the hell it was). First, I got lots of different stuff about a bathroom. Then, suddenly, I got a very quick but clear image of a teenage BLOND-HAIRED girl holding flowers. I drew it and wrote next to it "blond girl, holding flowers in front of her". I closed my eyes and then I got an image of a BLACK-HAIRED little girl. She looked a lot like my little sister when she was a baby. So, I sketched that and wrote, "Black- haired little girl". Then I ended the session as I wasn't getting anymore data. With that session, it seemed like I got closer to the target the longer I was in-session. If I had just wrote "girl holding flowers" and left off the wrong "blond" part, I would have nailed it there. Would I have still got the following image of a black-haired baby girl if I had done that? I don't know. I still don't know why I got the image of a blond girl in the first place. The "holding flowers in front of her" was dead-on accurate, but the "blond" part obviously wasn't. I think the best we can ever get is a very close representation of reality. The closer we get, the better. But I don't think we ever really get it exactly as it actually is - although that's what I keep shooting for. Best Regards, Don Reply | Forward

#2015

From: "Glyn" Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:58 am Subject: The importance (or not) of Tasking and Coordinates gebega Hi Don, Just read your great mail to Dick on HRVG. I agree with what you say about 'overlay' being a viewer problem and nothing to do with the tasker, in fact I agree with all you said, including the bit about Randi and his ilk ;-). I won't link to your mail without your permission, but others here would probably find it interesting. Many think that the tasker's 'focus' when setting the target is what points a viewer at the target, and this is why the meaningless coords we use actually work (always an intriguing mystery). I used to think along those lines too at the beginning, but now I think that it may go a bit like this......... Conscious Mind (Me

#1):

'OK, I've got the coordinates, I'll do a session and see what I can get'. Subconscious Mind (Me

#2):

'What! just a jumble of letters and numbers, do you think I'm psychic or something!? 'I dunno about you, but I need to know where I'm going mate, .... I'll just nip off to our future and find out what we are supposed to be looking at here, then I'll have something to work with. Trouble is, I do all this, but you are so wrapped up in yourself that you always make a mess of what I give you anyway! Can't you learn anything? LOL!! Well not exactly like that maybe, but the process may be similar. Makes more sense to me (but of course that doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense to anyone else :-)). The tasker may have some role in inspiring high-interest and may even influence the viewer because of the 'guru' thing you mentioned though, but they are not responsible for guiding the viewer to the target IMO. Kind regards, Glyn -------------------- Moderator's note: Here's the link. I know Don won't mind. -- PJ http://www.hrvg.org/cgi-bin/hrvg_bbs_hotwax/webbbs_config.pl?read=16540 Reply | Forward

#2022

From: "Eva " Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:08 am Subject: Re: The importance (or not) of Tasking and Coordinates k9caninek9 One clue is that you don't need coordinates. Heck, psychics have been doing it for centuries without lists of numbers. The subconscious can easily figure out what the target is going to be. It doesn't need numbers. If you will recall, the purpose of the numbers was originally to take the place of real coordinates. ANd those were only used because it was suspected at the time that real coords were needed. Nowadays, I think coords exist mostly as a place to launch indeograms and also as a mental security blanket. -E > Glyn Flyers wrote: > Many think that the tasker's 'focus' when > setting the target is what points > a viewer at the target, and this is why the > meaningless coords we use > actually work (always an intriguing mystery). > I used to think along those > lines too at the beginning, but now I think > that it may go a bit like this......... Reply | Forward

#2014

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 10:37 pm Subject: Re: Personal notes about AOL/sessions Rich_crv > Glyn wrote: > I have come to notice that I am better at picking some things up than > others. However what is most important to me is that after 4 years I find > that I am everso slightly more consistent in doing so. Small improvement > then, but heartening ;-) Time sure flies. I dont know how or if I have improved over the years. I think its mostly in being a bit less critical of my ( or anyone's ) work. I still am apprehensive about "lowering the bar". :) But, considering that there are people who had done this as their day job for several years and still are inconsistant, regularly off target and haven't found a way to get Randi's money .......... well, its amazin' that so many others claim to be so much better, also without getting Randi's money. :) Rich Reply | Forward

#2019

From: "Glyn" Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:59 pm Subject: RE: Personal notes about AOL/sessions gebega Hi Rich, That snippet of mine you quoted below reads as if I'm saying I can pick up some things better than other *people*. (I wish :-))... what I actually mean't was that I can pick up some types of *impressions* better than I can some other types. Just to get that straight in case some may think I'm blowing my trumpet when I've only got a whistle :-)..... there are some of those out there that do that I'm sure, but I'm not one of them. Yes, I know what you mean about some viewers claiming to have a very high hit rate when you have no way of knowing what their definition of a 'hit' might be. Personally, I am obviously really pleased if I get some congruency, but to my mind I would only have 'a hit' if I could do a 'Joe McMoneagle'.....so needless to say, I've never had one :-). Seriously though, there is really no way, unless people publish their sessions (and there are not enough of those), to judge what they do mean when they say they are good at RV (Given that the basic protocol of 'blindness' is met and the target can be validated). I just wish there were more of the professional and really good viewers' sessions to be seen on the net. I needed a yardstick when I set out to learn RV. What is the average viewer capable of ? How good a viewer should I expect my professional RV teacher to be? I had books, but books tend to show the good stuff, not the average. Many 'schools' required financial outlay before you could even look at examples of what they claimed they could teach you to do. One of the things that attracted me to HRVG in the first place was the number of sessions that they have published in full and for anyone to see. There are some really good ones that I can try to emulate (if only :-)), but there are also some of the more 'average' sessions for me to compare with my own efforts. That is so important IMO. Kind regards, Glyn Reply | Forward

#2034

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 7:21 pm Subject: Re: Personal notes about AOL/sessions Rich_crv > I just wish there were more of the > professional and really good viewers' > sessions to be seen on the net. I > needed a yardstick when I set out to > learn RV. What is the average viewer > capable of ? How good a viewer should > I expect my professional RV teacher to be? I agree 100%. I don't understand why the "professional", experienced viewers are so reluctant to post their work. If they follow their own advice they must have tons of practice sessions that are not secret or proprietary. I often suspect that the "bar" isnt at all that high and that is the ---real--- secret. What you see is what you will get and what you see are 99% student work or put another way, average, typical work..... what you can really expect. Maybe the "great" work is really just the handfull of exceptions to the average. If someone's day job was RVing full time for several years, then I would expect a few home runs, but they are apparently few and far between since after all these years there isnt enough new material from a-n-y-b-o-d-y to do one chapter of a sequel to Schnabel's book. > I had books, but books tend to > show the good stuff, not the average. Yeah, and so much repition. Do Pat Price's derrick drawings hold the record? :) > Many 'schools' required financial > outlay before you could even look at examples of what they claimed they > could teach you to do. And how many did one see? > One of the things that attracted me to HRVG in the first place was the > number of sessions that they have published in full and for anyone to see. > There are some really good ones that I can try to emulate (if only :-)), but > there are also some of the more 'average' sessions for me to compare with > my own efforts. That is so important IMO. Yes but they publish only the best ones which may be a small percentage of the total work, not that it would be much help to see tons of poor sessions, but to really get a handle on what to expect or shoot for there should be some data that says..... viewer x has 5 sessions out of 75 published. Also, how much of Glenn's work is shown? If he is the standard, I would hope to see "tons" of examples. I believe that he also said that there are others from his unit even better but no examples (even anonymously ) either. Rich

// 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