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 : 37-337 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/37?)
21:22:12
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#37

From: "nita...ulse.com" Date: Wed Jul 10, 2002 12:38 am Subject: Re: Precog, nature of time, etc. nitahickok Hi PJ It isn't channeled but came from information on a hermetic website. It was written by Rawn Clark.I enjoyed it because I really had to work to get over the problems of seeing both futures where each of the targets could be chosen in ARV and be correct. I figured that it was a problem that would be fixed by narrowing my focus and it has seemed to help. I will try to do one target that you mentioned using a dowsing method. I was thinking of using a bell ringing in my own private projects that I have been working on for awhile. It was a good idea. Nita Half the spiritual life consists in remembering what we are up against and where we are going. Ayya Khema "When the Iron Eagle Flies." Reply | Forward

#38

From: "dennanm" Date: Wed Jul 10, 2002 12:50 am Subject: Multiple Timelines, ARV dennanm > --- In pjrv...nita...nita...rote: > I really had to work to get > over the problems of seeing both futures where > each of the targets could be > chosen in ARV and be correct. Oh, I see what you mean. I'd misunderstood. I've had some 'spontaneous' experience with multiple timelines/probability lines (those are enough to scramble the neural circuits), but I can't think of any problem I've had in RV with. But - - I have done almost no ARV, and what I played with had some protocol problems, so maybe I just haven't run into it yet. :-) Do you mean that you did RV sessions, and when given the actual feedback, your sessions were not accurate? Out of curiosity, how would you know that your session had described, or also described, one of the decoys in the ARV? The tasker didn't tell you this did she? Getting ANY feedback about the other targets (even that you described one) can mess up the ARV process -- that is one protocol that is hard-core based on feedback. Regards, PJ Reply | Forward

#42

From: "k9caninek9" Date: Wed Jul 10, 2002 2:51 am Subject: Re: Multiple Timelines, ARV k9caninek9 --- In pjrv...dennanm" > --- In pjrv...nita...nita...rote: > > I really had to work to get > > over the problems of seeing both futures where > > each of the targets could be > > chosen in ARV and be correct. > > Oh, I see what you mean. I'd misunderstood. > > I've had some 'spontaneous' experience with multiple > timelines/probability lines (those are enough to scramble the neural > circuits), but I can't think of any problem I've had in RV with. But - > - I have done almost no ARV, and what I played with had some protocol > problems, so maybe I just haven't run into it yet. :-) > > Do you mean that you did RV sessions, and when given the actual > feedback, your sessions were not accurate? Out of curiosity, how > would you know that your session had described, or also described, > one of the decoys in the ARV? The tasker didn't tell you this did > she? Getting ANY feedback about the other targets (even that you > described one) can mess up the ARV process -- that is one protocol > that is hard-core based on feedback. > > Regards, > > PJ LOL, yeah that is the supposedly required protocol. YOu really should consider trying ARV. You can follow that protocol to the 'T' and still get displacement. Or you can ditch it and do better, but still get displacement. The point is that the protocol does not eliminate or even help with the displacement prob. THe only thing that seems to eliminate displacement is a heck of a lot of practice. Of course there are some that say that it requires a heck of a lot of practice AND that protocol. But since those same people did not try doing a heck of a lot of practice WITHOUT that protocol (to the best of my knowledge), I am still undecided about the validity of that protocol being required. As time goes on, it seems to be becoming more and more 'old school,' whether justified or not. -E Reply | Forward

#43

From: "dennanm" Date: Wed Jul 10, 2002 6:33 am Subject: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay dennanm Howdy E., I hit the wrong bleeping link! 'Approve' is where 'Reply' is in yahoo. I mean to delete some of the old quoting and make a note... --- In pjrv...k9caninek9" The point is that the protocol does not > eliminate or even help with the displacement prob. Well a BOATLOAD of research has been done as relates to the effect of feedback on sessions. And one thing that there is simply no question about at all at this point, is that giving the viewer ANY feedback beyond the actual target they should have described nearly always produces a great deal of noise in their session -- usually in the form of their session including information related to whatever else they were shown. ARV at least traditionally is totally targeted ON THE FEEDBACK, and so actually suffers more from blowing planned feedback protocol than non-precog ARV which is often targeted on the target instead of the feedback. I'm all for testing things out personally, and won't dispute that, but I also see no need to reinvent a wheel that a lot of intelligent people and great viewers worked hard to test out at length already. The reason I'm bothering to have an opinion -- since, not doing ARV, I normally wouldn't comment on what someone else IS doing and I am NOT -- is because I do my RV practice precog, which puts it in the same boat as ARV. I have seen the effects of blowing protocol in my own work -- messing up my feedback by forgetting to choose a target at the tasked point, or choosing two targets by accident, or even doing two sessions too close together. Although I have found more problems tracing from my own lack of focus than anything, it is painfully obvious what feedback problems do to a session, at least in my own notebook. I think, it is also that I consider "displacement" to be an issue not much different than "overlay". I certainly agree it exists -- but I think it exists a great deal to the extent that a viewer or tasker validates it. I certainly find in my practice that when I have had something going on along those lines, and I notice it, and there it is again damn it, and I theorize about it, and by now it's constant, and then I send my theory to a friend who's a good viewer who responds with what amounts to, "No excuse, just do it right - the focus is up to you." -- and then when suddenly I'm not allowed to validate it any more (because I validate him a great deal), my data is just right or wrong period, what do you know, the problem at least 95% goes away! I think an ARV tasker telling viewers anything about the "decoys" is just giving them feedback on the wrong target, and validation of having been "psychic!, but about the other target" and is almost ensuring what you call 'displacement', and I'd just call plain noise in session data. There is really only one target in ARV. I can't think of any good reason for a tasker to need to blow that protocol by telling a viewer something like gee, their session matched the decoy ("other target"). That's feedback for the viewer. It seems to me it just validates what they did wrong. I'm sure there are more than two opinions on this of course... :-) PJ Reply | Forward

#56

From: "k9caninek9" Date: Wed Jul 10, 2002 6:23 pm Subject: Re: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay k9caninek9 Well yes, I think there you have explained exactly my point. The noise is there because you allow it to be there, you give it an excuse to be there. You say to yourself that the problem is overlay when overlay could be just another word for lack of focus and giving your subconscious an excuse to be wrong. (Jeez I hope I haven't started WWII and half the list will no longer talk to me now..) As you have said, a heck of a lot of the results have to do with attitude, not just method. I have seen the same thing, that if I allow myself to call something 'overlay' then I seem to get a lot more of it than if I call it 'wrong.' I have to wonder if the research could have really controlled for that, if it could have controlled for the opinions of the researchers and possibly strongly established viewpoints and habits of the viewers themselves. I am not saying that research should be ignored, but neither do I think it should be taken as gospel. No offense, but there have been many cases in history when years of research have turned out to be hideously wrong due one or more factors that were not being considered. In fact, if you look at just about any field, the current theories were originally ones that were considered obviously wrong due to 'years of research.' And with this field so young, it seems to me it's a bit early to have any gospel set in stone. Heck, we don't even know the basic mechanisms of how it works yet! LOL! -E Reply | Forward

#57

From: "dennanm" Date: Wed Jul 10, 2002 6:43 pm Subject: Re: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay dennanm --- In pjrv...k9caninek9" Well yes, I think there you have explained exactly my point. > The noise is there because you allow it to be there, you give > it an excuse to be there. You say to yourself that the > problem is overlay when overlay could be just another word > for lack of focus and giving your subconscious an excuse to > be wrong. (Jeez I hope I haven't started WWII and half the > list will no longer talk to me now..) Well we'd both be ignored... Yes! That is indeed what I think. From experience, not from armchair rhetoric. When I validated it, it happened more, and when I was told I had no excuse so I invalidated it, it mostly vanished. At this point, I have to believe that everything is the viewer's responsibility, is the bottom line. These things ARE real - but so is a viewer's ability to intend "beyond" them. > I have to wonder if the > research could have really controlled for that, if > it could have > controlled for the opinions of the researchers > and possibly strongly > established viewpoints and habits of the > viewers themselves. Well you're right that there is an infinite number of variables and research that could be done! But they really DID think of a lot of this stuff. There is so much I don't know, but even what I've picked up in 7 years of picking the brain of people who did it, shows me they thought of stuff even I never thought of (as if that should be anything impressive! LOL! I crack myself up!) -- -- but one important note to consider in research is that real lab viewers are, to be perfectly honest, so flippin' much better than pretty much anybody I've ever even HEARD of in layman's RV, that excepting projects that deliberately worked with people they dragged in from the public (and there were actually a lot of those...) we are almost talking about different animals here. I don't know anybody outside the lab who could stand up to 1/10 the lab requirements for viewing skill, consistency, etc. So, these people SEE overlay, then they test to see how it can be modified, brought on, taken back, and so forth, until they feel pretty sure that despite all the parameters.... the viewer is the key tool. > cases in history when years of research have turned out to be > hideously wrong Absolutely! Much medicine will get there. ;-) We're having BIGTIME storm here so I will be offlist for hours, if not all night, as I gotta unplug -- PJ Reply | Forward

#73

From: "intuitwolf" Date: Thu Jul 11, 2002 2:47 pm Subject: Re: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay intuitwolf > --- In pjrv...k9caninek9" > Well yes, I think there you have explained exactly my point. > > The noise is there because you allow it to be there, you give > > it an excuse to be there. You say to yourself that the > > problem is overlay when overlay could be just another word > > for lack of focus --- In pjrv...dennanm" -- but one important note to consider in research is that real lab > viewers are, to be perfectly honest, so flippin' much better than > pretty much anybody I've ever even HEARD of in layman's RV So, if the research did show overlay/displacement problems cropping up in the viewing of these better-than-the-average-bear viewers - who presumably have good 'focus' - do we then ignore that there is such an animal? I understand what you are saying about taking responsibility for your own focus and am not disputing the beneficial effects. But I've seen a lot of folks wanting to disallow the existence of overlay problems and thus continue to contaminate their results with bad tasking and feedback issues. I apologize in advance if most of this has been already covered - I just arrived and haven't taken the time to backtrack through the messages. Just delete this if I'm way off track and missing too much history in the discussion. Shelia ------------------- Moderator's Note: Naw, I don't think it should be ignored. If (e.g.) feedback causes overlay problems because you're given 4 pics (1 target, 3 decoys), then obviously, it makes sense to correct the feedback issue (rather than just insist viewers oughtta be responsible-for-self). I am certainly NOT for avoiding dealing with tasking (etc.) problems, or avoiding experimenting with improving them, all in the name of making the viewer responsible for everything... you're right. I think the primary issues of viewer responsibility are what come in to cover "everything ELSE" that cannot be (or we don't yet know how to) accounted for by way of changing a protocol or method point. Or, when most of a viewer's work is normal and proper practice - so such issues as tasking/monitoring/feedback/etc. don't so much come up. In the end, the viewer's attitude, expectation, focus are the primary session determinors -- but if they're working with others, then of course there are other factors too! and it'd be silly to ignore them. My reason for noting the skill in lab viewers is that it is entirely possible that viewers still in development -- like me, and I'm just at the beginning of a long road -- are simply not as GOOD AT dealing with things like overlay as labVs might have been. So research may say something like, this is in the viewer's control... and that may be true... but it may be harder to prove that with less skilled viewers. Viewers not as skilled might need more consideration about the factors that "can" cause overlay; not because skill can't work around them (but why should it _have_ to if they're solvable...) but because there's no point in complicating a learning process by adding another layer of complexity. On the other hand, some people use extra weights in bodybuilding early on because they're die-hards, or practice twice as much karate as they should to stay sane ;-) and stuff like that, and that's not necessarily bad; it has its own advantages I think, to be willing to take on complexity and be determined to slog through it and succeed anyway - and end up capable of that success even in the most difficult situation. The real question I guess is whether one accepts that a given thing "causes or creates" a problem with overlay (etc.); or whether one experiments to 'see'; or whether one takes an attitude of strength and is determined to succeed regardless of such detail. I think it's probably the second route that might be best... but I have been trying to take the third of late. I find that even if I am WRONG, that merely the psychological state of strength, courage, belief I can do it and that's my job, seems to have its own benefits. But this may be just my own personality and personal issues at this moment. The main thing I was posting with E. about was not letting stuff get made into 'excuses' - and not presenting overlay to viewers or self as 'validation' (e.g., missed the target but hey it's okay, you were psychic, you just got the OTHER target!)-- neither seem healthy to personal growth. Others might feel otherwise, of course. -- PJ Reply | Forward

#121

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Sat Jul 13, 2002 11:56 am Subject: Re: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay docsavagebill Hi PJ, What you say is true. But you are wrong about displacement. It happens whether one grades ones own targets or uses an external judge that never reveals things. It just happens. Even the Targ group failed their second trial at futures because of it. It can be beaten but takes tremendous effort. JFK is one of the best,..and Iknow of some others. And even they have had to face it. In judging work done by other viewers ( even when not telling them the results) I saw tremendous "pseudohits" on the wrong target time after time. And one person I know who is an excelent viewer was hitting 80% wrong targets this way. Some taskers consider such negative ARV'ers as beneficial to their group as the positive ARVers, since they can go oppposite in the stock market.. Problem is the negative viewer realizes she /he is not getting the right target during feedback and gets depressed and gives up..even though they are getting beautifully displaced psi information. One can invoke that the viewer is getting the information telepathically from the judge ( a form of overlay) but that argument is circular since there is no other way to do it. Someone has to judge the viewing. Greg K has found it even with computer graded targets also where no human was involved. I suspect it's basis is in the ones psychological reaction to the feedback . And you can't remove feedback from an ARV session. The subconcious will do what's expected of it psychologically in ARV including missing. Besr Regards, Bill ------------- Moderator's Note: Howdy doc. I didn't say it wouldn't exist without feedback problems (judging one's own from decoys). I've mentioned displacement and overlay DO exist... it's just that certain things in protocol (like feedback issues) can greatly aggravate the situation, and certain things in viewer psychology (like validating it) don't help either. Personally I have wondered if, in the case of things like ARV displacement, some of this is simply a 'probabilities' issue. You know, like... maybe that WAS the outcome target when they did the viewing...! -- PJ Reply | Forward

#124

From: "k9caninek9" Date: Sat Jul 13, 2002 1:46 pm Subject: Re: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay k9caninek9 > Moderator's Note: [...] > I have wondered if, in the case of things like ARV displacement, > some of this is simply a 'probabilities' issue. You know, like... > maybe that WAS the outcome target when they did the viewing...! Yup, that comes up all the time, the 'alternate timelines' theory. The question is, is that a valid theory or another excuse? There's no way to tell that I know of. -E ----------------- Moderator's note: Yup. It's like trying to provide evidence one can change their past. Or that the future is not fixed. May be right or may be another theory, but there seems no way to find evidence for such a thing! However I think in terms of RV, if such a thing WERE in some way involved, there might be some way of focusing, as a viewer, to slightly improve odds. Then again, if that theory had any validity, one actually DID see feedback to match... somewhere else. LOL. So, you're right - it just ends up being an excuse! -- PJ Reply | Forward

#129

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Sat Jul 13, 2002 8:11 pm Subject: Re: Re: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay docsavagebill Hi Eve, I used to be sure that displacement was caused by alternative time lines or possibilities. The problem was that the more I BELEIVED that concept the more I displaced. It seemed to catalyze more and more displacement. So I have banned that concept from my thinking... I'm not so compartmentalized that I can totally ban a reasonable sounding hypothesis.. but I try....:-G One way to test the idea of alternate time lines is to do ARV on things that are already known..but blind to you. That way you can't be testing alternative time lines. There is only one outcome. Now if displacement continued at the same rate..that would be strong evidence that it has nothing to do with alternative time lines. If it disappeared..perhaps it does. Best Regards, Bill Reply | Forward

#137

From: "scottrver" Date: Mon Jul 15, 2002 9:42 pm Subject: Re: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay scottrver Hi Bill, Great idea, are you aware if anyone has done this experiment? It is almost the same as RVing blind and having displacement with the decoys when judged on a point scoring system as opposed to rank ordering. I have no idea how often that type of displacement happens, if at all. For what it's worth, I have heard from reliable published sources that there has been a strong correlation between displacement and the amount of money at stake. I don't know if that applies to everyone doing ARV or just those with some sort of guilt complex about trying to make money with it. I don't believe a whole lot of research has been done. Sincerely, Scott Ellis > One way to test the idea of alternate time lines is to > do ARV on things that are already known..but blind to > you. That way you can't be testing alternative time > lines. There is only one outcome. Now if displacement > continued at the same rate..that would be strong > evidence that it has nothing to do with alternative > time lines. If it disappeared..perhaps it does. > Best Regards, > Bill Reply | Forward

#139

From: "dennanm" Date: Tue Jul 16, 2002 8:06 am Subject: Re: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay dennanm --- In pjrv...scottrver" For what it's worth, I have heard from reliable published sources that > there has been a strong correlation between displacement and the > amount of money at stake. I don't know if that applies to everyone > doing ARV or just those with some sort of guilt complex about trying > to make money with it. This places displacement where I think it at least halfway belongs -- in the category of "psi missing". That only highlights the idea that viewer psychology is a tremendous factor in viewer results, and mucking it up with decoy display for self-judging, feedback re: decoys, or validation re: decoys -- one of the only very well known points of protocol research is adamant about in ARV -- probably just aggravates the problem. I really like the going theory that one has to blow this traditional protocol on feedback because otherwise if the viewers miss, their feelings are hurt and they will get demoralized and quit. I assume many folks are now from the same beloved liberal school system that gives everybody an award lest someone actually 'winning' give the others self esteem problems.... I think in the layman's RV field it often comes down to what few individuals have the talent to consistently succeed despite the 1001 handicaps of "help" that others keep trying to provide them. :-) Which reminds me, that as nobody provided me any data for the pjrv ARV target, there is no feedback for that. I will skip doing those from now on, no big deal. There are plenty of other targets. PJ Reply | Forward

#141

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Tue Jul 16, 2002 10:34 am Subject: Re: Re: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay docsavagebill Hi Scott, Unfortunately I have not heard of anyone doing those kind of experiments although Greg K has done alot of research , I don't think he did that control. People that are good ARVers tend to have their time full of actual projects and probably don't want to waste time on a control like that. But as you say, it might clear up a lot of debris. I never heard the $$ causing displacement. But my personal experience is that almost any psychological factor will affect your displacement rate. If you believe it's wrong to win money with ARV.. you will certainly displace all over. It's extremely tough that way. Much more so than regular RV. Best Regards, Reply | Forward

#144

From: "scottrver" Date: Tue Jul 16, 2002 12:45 pm Subject: Re: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay - experiment scottrver Hi Bill, I believe that Targ's second ARV attempt went 0 for 12 when they upped the ante. Of course the psychology of it might simply make some hitters into missers when they know the amount is going up - useful if predictable. Some of the most impressive RV sessions I have personally judged have been ARV misses. So what are the possibilities for displacement? a) ARVing probabilistic future feedbacks - possibly addressed by your control experiment of ARVing a past event. b) A psychological effect on the viewer? c) For monetary concerns - a "moral" law? - easily discounted if an example can be shown of consistently winning with personally significant amounts of money. Has Greg K's monetary success been significant to him? Hear of anybody else? Any other possibilities? Any volunteers to do an ARV session or two for experiment A? I'd like to know the answer to this one. I'll gladly set up multiple target pools, feedback, and judging - confer with researchers for soundness, and publish the protocol and results with due credit to Bill for the idea. Scott Reply | Forward

#146

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:08 pm Subject: Re: Re: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay - experiment docsavagebill Hi Scott and PJ The reason I like the experiment is that it will separate any real "precognitive" obstacles from the psychological or "karmic" ( pay vs no pay) ostacles. A second experiment involving pay for hitting "known" targets with ARV ..could separate the karmic issues out. Leaving only the psychoogical if it came that way. I really don't believe in the money issue as I've won money doing ARv. Not a lot, but it was important to me personally ..and allowed me to attend the RV convention . And I've had displacment doing ARV when no or little money was involved. One could suggest (as posed by PJ) that we only win the ARV trials we are fated to. [[Dang it doc, would you quit misquoting me already?! I _never_ said that! -- PJ]] But again if it IS psychoclogical , that thought would freeze your progress, unless you BELIEVED you were fated to win a bunch. ARV is the form of RV that most requires an almost blind religious faith in what you are doing. And if your subconcious believe is suspicious of winning money by gamboling..well you are not going to succeed. Just to be sure I do donate part of my winnings to charity... LOL sorry I play all the bases. The Targ experiment with 0/12 is negative psi displacement at its best! fascinating because the negative psi effect there would be like p < .0001 !! Zero for 10 would be a 1/1000 shot, 0/12 would be less than 1/10,000 by chance. Merely , "missing" would not produce this data..this is DISPLACEMENT BIG TIME.. LOL. Thanks for that data Scott. And note PJ ( Grin) that was all done with EXCELLENT viewers all blinded to the "decoy" targets ( monitored too I believe). Best Regards, Bill Reply | Forward

#152

From: "scottrver" Date: Tue Jul 16, 2002 9:10 pm Subject: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay - experiment scottrver Hi Bill and PJ, If the remaining displacements were ultimately limited to be psychological vs. fated, then something such as (self-)hypnosis would presumably have an impact on the psychological aspect. But I suppose you'd want some sort of displacement track record first. You're welcome for the bit of data - I hope my recollection regarding it is correct. I think it is, but I wouldn't go quoting it. To further the argument that displacement is not simply missing - simply missing would rarely contain detailed data both unambiguous and unique to the incorrect target. Yet I've seen this happen frequently in ARV displacement. Scott ------------------ Hiya Scott, I'm real interested in self-hypnosis in terms of contributing to positive changes in viewer psychology. Some serious research was done to see if viewers were any better under hypnosis than out of it. I'm told, they weren't much, and when out, even after practice in this, were no better than prior to that. However McMoneagle did say that it vastly improved his ability to 'get in state' which could take hours prior and took 5 minutes after. Since getting in the proper state to do a session (without trying to force it and inventing data, or looking at the blank page waiting for something until I'm hacked off and quit) is probably my biggest issue in viewer development, this sounds pretty cool to me. However, lacking a DEEP hypnotist handy, I will have to make do with self-hypnosis. Gotta get to making myself some good tapes, I'll put the hemi-sync stuff in the background... when I get more time. In the meantime I'm hoping regular hemi-sync, even at low levels (like Focus 12) will do as helpful daily meditation practice. I find doing shamanic meditations with the freeflow F12 from tmi vastly amps up the results, seems to put me more in touch with the 'emotional' body and physical, feel-able results from those. Am mapping out a plan to subvert my psychology to more of a 'believer' lol. In terms of displacement, yes you are right - it has to be psi-missing but not MISSING, as simply missing would just be bad data -- not data that clearly matches a decoy instead of the target. Regards. -- PJ Reply | Forward

#337

From: "scottrver" Date: Fri Aug 2, 2002 2:32 pm Subject: I was wrong - ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay scottrver In a previous posting I stated "I believe that Targ's second ARV attempt went 0 for 12...". In responding to a PEM requesting validation of the above statement I reviewed my notes and embarrassingly find myself to be in error. The closest I have is that in interviews Targ has stated something to the effect that their second project wasn't very successful... but no where did he give statistics. At the time I thought I was correct, but apparently displacement occurs with one's memory too. My apologies for any inconveniences this may have caused. Scott -------------- Moderator's note: Thank you for being so forthright. How many people will up and confess when they are wrong even if nobody else knows. :-) -- PJ Reply | Forward

#138

From: "dennanm" Date: Tue Jul 16, 2002 8:13 am Subject: Re: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay dennanm Good morning doc, --- In pjrv...ill Pendragon the more I BELEIVED that concept the more I > displaced. It seemed to catalyze more and more > displacement. More on 'viewer psychology' being a primary issue... > One way to test the idea of alternate time lines is to > do ARV on things that are already known..but blind to > you. That way you can't be testing alternative time > lines. There is only one outcome. Now if displacement > continued at the same rate..that would be strong > evidence that it has nothing to do with alternative > time lines. If it disappeared..perhaps it does. That's a good idea. Though it neatly avoids any problematic issues of the fact that such 'timelines and probabilities' may be at a different degree of 'stickiness' each one, and partly but not fully dependent on whether or not something had been predetermined. For that matter it's just complex, because it may be that 'which' ARV trials one chooses to become involved in (even consciously not knowing their nature) are not accidental, nor are results... Personally I think some displacement in ARV is simple psi missing because the belief systems of the viewers are not fully developed to believe it's possible, so like the studies in the lab, people who didn't believe in psi often evidenced plenty of it - but in reverse - in the psychological idea that doing 'badly' on a test meant something... I think that much of the past is determined by (and modified by) the present, and hence the point of feedback is really critical for ARV. Or as a saying I've liked since I was a kid goes, "Today is the tomorrow you dreamed about yesterday." PJ Reply | Forward

#149

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Tue Jul 16, 2002 4:45 pm Subject: Re: Displacement & Terminology docsavagebill Good Afternoon IN pJ ...:-) PJ > Howdy doc. I'm sorry if I misquoted you but it's how I interpreted the following passage : > For that matter it's just complex, because it may be > that 'which' ARV > trials one chooses to become involved in (even > consciously not > knowing their nature) are not accidental, nor are > results... I digest that to being "fated to win or lose".. ??? PJ > No way Jose! :-) "Fated"?! What the heck is FATED?! That makes it sounds like, "The STARS.... the STARS are not RIGHT for this for you today!" LOL or "God or your soul has pre-arranged this for you!" ([whispering] Psst! PJ! It is your DESTINY to screw this session up!) I don't believe in fate. I believe in dharmic self-direction but not fate. Look, it TAKES psychic ability to know WHAT to screw up in the first place. Otherwise it's just suckey viewing, not displacement. :-) I mean, say you have 100 trials with 20 viewers and 14 of those trials were a session that was for money - that would make them money if they were right. Would those _who had existing issues with money_ screw up more on those targets than others? I don't know. -- but I bet they would, after the first one, because I believe that all people are psychic enough to know, on some level, the target and type. It is about belief systems IMO. Some people believe it's wrong to make money off psi; some people have existing money issues which already points out a problem in belief systems; some people would feel challenged by a hard measurable result and that could be good or bad. ARV differs from RV in that it is so "outcome" based in ways that often affect the viewer in one form or another. So I think a whole lot of psychological constructs that a viewer has, they have across the board in their life, but ARV puts such in relief. ..................PJ> > Personally I think some displacement in ARV is > simple psi missing > but in reverse - I think we need to resolve terminology here for this string. What you call missing ( negative psi) I call displacement or pseudohits. Plane old MISSING in my thinking would mean ending with a nonsignificant random choice..Just clueless imagination..and not hitting either the target or the decoy significantly. .A significant negative score is what I understood displacement to be, because you'r being "displaced" to the the decoy target. So I don't think we have a difference here. We are just using different words and are in mutual complete agreement...G OK. Yes, psi-missing is BEING psychic but in the wrong way or wrong direction somehow. But it's worth being clear on words Bill, because 'displacement' can be actually _generated_ by protocol issues particularly feedback, as a system and protocol issue and a feedback issue, whereas psi-missing is something I consider wholly a viewer psychology issue. ...........PJ> Or as a saying I've liked since I was a kid goes, > "Today is the tomorrow you dreamed about yesterday." Great quote. I think that is the whole basis for Lyns "Remote INfluencing the future". And is also implicite in Pru's Wild card method and in ARV for trhat matter. Great way to think of this. But note that the converse is NOT true to my knowledge. "Today is not the Yesterday you dreamed about tommorrow!" Actually I think it is. :-) And the whole concept of remote influencing the future is hilarious to me. Must everybody attempt to haphazardly reinvent wheels built much better, by many others, in 1001 forms, throughout history, and assign their own term to it, as if they invented it?? If I were to list the number of structured and unstructured, formal, methodological, historical, spiritual, documented (and more) approaches to arranging one's future it would take me all night. RV is beginner stuff in the area of directed-intent-to-change. From Huna to Scientology, from shamanic meditations to ceremonial magick, it's endless. You might consider looking into some of the eight bazillion existing methods for 'remote influencing the future' if you're really into this concept. Many of them are quite worthwhile. But I wouldn't call them RV or mix 'em in with it, personally. ;-) Regards, PJ Reply | Forward

#142

From: "nita...ulse.com" Date: Tue Jul 16, 2002 11:32 am Subject: Re: Re: ARV, Feedback, displacement/overlay nitahickok Hi PJ I have to admit that I had more displacement when I was worrying about LST, proper way to do targets etc than I have at any other time. I was having problems with my health also at the time. My stats at PIA went down because I was suffering from diabetes and didn't know it. I have heard every excuse on why ARV misses occur. I have never seen people concentrate on why the good streaks occur. I also hate it when people mention the money. The first time I had some really good percentages on a ARV target it was mentioned on Stargates. We had a couple of weeks with messages with the headers. You can't make money with ARV. It is the inertia encountered when a bunch of minds want all these things to occur because they can't do it. Talk about frontloading! I think most of those things are making the people miss because they are concentrating on the negative. They should be doing things every day and complimenting themselves on the postive and making it fun. Nita Half the spiritual life consists in remembering what we are up against and where we are going. Ayya Khema "When the Iron Eagle Flies." Reply | Forward

#145

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Tue Jul 16, 2002 12:26 pm Subject: Re: Re: Astral Plane Ideograms docsavagebill Hi Nita, Making the ideogram into a dimensional portal sounds interesting. I'd LIke to try that. Did you every follow it up using that method again? Also, the action of "pasting it on the Real Time Astral plane" is that just a tasking direction? i.e. does one just mentally say : " I'm now accessing the real time astral plane and imagine the ideogram pasted to it and opening? Or does one have to first be able to get out of body to the astral plane? Best Regards, Bill

// 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