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 : 1591-1599 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1591?)
23:11:45
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1591

From: "David Humphries" Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 6:37 pm Subject: probing of ideograms a_healey56 Hello all, I have a question concerning the probing of ideograms. It's my understanding that when you probe the ideogram that you should be able to feel the degree of hardness of that aspect of the target. I understand why this is supposed to be, but every time I've probed an ideogram it has felt exactly as hard as the surface under the paper -- usually a clipboard or a table top. In my sessions I will sometimes write "medium hard" or soft/firm", but honestly, I'm kidding myself, because it always feels the same. I do get sensations of g-force, falling, warm or cold, smells, tastes, etc. sometimes during a session, so I'm not incapable of feeling these things. I'm wondering if there's something I'm doing wrong concerning the ideograms. Perhaps it's just my state of mind? David Reply | Forward

#1595

From: "Eva" Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 7:35 pm Subject: Re: probing of ideograms k9caninek9 That's why Lyn suggests doing ideogram drills. It can take a long time to develop that sense of actual feeling from the ideogram that is suggested in CRV. Or you can do your own thing if that works for you. But it's a lot harder to develop your own system out of complete cluelessness and confusion than to adopt someone else's system. (this from someone who chose to adopt her own system) -E > I have a question concerning the probing of ideograms. Reply | Forward

#1599

From: "PJ Gaenir" Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 11:14 pm Subject: Re: probing of ideograms / Methods dennanm Hi Dave, > but every time I've probed an ideogram it has felt exactly as > hard as the surface under the paper -- usually a clipboard or a > table top. In my sessions I will sometimes write "medium hard" > or soft/firm", but honestly, I'm kidding myself, because it > always feels the same. I do get sensations of g-force, falling, > warm or cold, smells, tastes, etc. sometimes during a session, > so I'm not incapable of feeling these things. I'm wondering if > there's something I'm doing wrong concerning the ideograms. I think everybody who has an Official Opinion about an Official Methodology will tell you something in line with the Official Way Of Things From Their Corner on this. So with that in mind -- mine is too, of course. :-) This is a component specific to a methodology -- which, because CRV influenced so much else, has been grafted into others as well now. Like all methodologies, they are mostly representative of (a) what the maker/compiler assumed was right and/or learned themselves, and (b) the way things work for that individual, so they are sure should work for everybody else. And if everybody else agrees they are The Expert, most of them, it probably will work that way for, or they will make it so. Do you know it was eons and endless talk about RV before I ventured to mention that a big portion of my RV data was often audible (not outside my head, inside it - but actual voices, commentaries, sounds, etc.). Nowadays that would sound silly and obvious to everybody, but at the time, it was just never mentioned. Why? Because apparently that was not the common way that those Officially Talking About It were used to. Just another example. And one day I said to Joe, "I asked a part of myself, like if I was an architect, about the target, and it said ____, and it was good data! And it turned out this worked for a whole bunch of 'aspects'! And I got an actual joke as an answer! And black, black humor!" And he was like, yeah.... that's pretty normal isn't it. Well actually, NO, asking 'aspects of self' for data, getting entire jokes verbally as an answer etc. is NOT something you hear a lot of people talking about... but if it were part of somebody's Official Methodology For Remote Viewing you'd hear about it and everybody would be 'expected' to 'ask the architect aspect of self about the target and get an answer' for example. Different stuff works for different people. Some is official and some is not. Unofficial stuff may work for you; some official stuff may not. "Probing" ideograms works really great for some people. I imagine some people formally 'taught' that way it works for mostly because because they are told it does and they believe it. ;-) Other people, it doesn't work well for. But, there are probably other means of getting data you can find that will work for you, some of which might not work for most others. Ingo's CRV is strong on the assumption that right off, a viewer is going to pick up some texture/surface density, and as a primary first-level data, overall concept (gestalt). Pru's method changes that somewhat, I assume based more on what works for her, and instead of aiming for gestalt up front, her method expects "topography" (outer shape) information, which is a dramatically different kind of information really, shape instead of concept. CRV expects that every moment brings you closer to target contact, and so you ignore what came before and move on even if the data is contradictory, you never base info you are writing or sketching on anything other than what you feel right then (unless it's analytical, like Stage 5 tools, which are designed for that) and because one is really "flitting all over" the target to begin with it's not at all unusual for data to seem totally contradictory between stages or within a stage -- that usually resolves by S4. Pru's method walks through the first-early assumption of topography, and then a phase that in CRV would be called Stage 2 (Phase 2 in Buchanan's; "point C: in the Scan, Survey section" in Pru's), and when all that is over, then you are to sketch what you described way back prior to the C: descriptives -- although it does mention reviewing data, it says, quote "Regardless of the method you choose to gather the visual data, it is imperative that what you declare in part B: is what you draw in part D:" Between B and D are an entire stage in CRV, though, and you would draw whatever you might feel inclined to -- right THEN, even if it were totally different (and it might well be, and your descriptives might not match your gestalt, either). You would not go 'back' a whole stage and draw what you declared as point B: for your Stage 1 ideogram. This is conceptually a complete reversal of several concepts that CRV rests on, particularly the ones about not going back in a session, but others too. I'm not saying either is better or right, I'm simply using this to example that different people come up with different methods partly because what they find "works" in their RV experience is different. Most people ARE different. There may be some things that 'generally' work for 'most' people but that doesn't mean they gotta work for you. Ideogram probing requires a conceptually abstract displacement of target impression into the activity. In other words, you are dissociating from the physical activity just to the degree that you are allowing (even enforcing) non-physical data to seem like part of the activity itself (a bit like fantasizing, and letting your mind give your body an impression, even though objectively it isn't there, except in this case of course you are not deliberately inventing it, but letting data 'come through the pen'). Some other psychic methods, you wouldn't do an ideogram and probing, you would conceptualize projecting out of body and 'flying over' the target (whether large/small, indoor/outdoor) and describing it; or, you would imagine reaching out with a hammer and lightly rapping on it - does it sink? - does it echo? - does it get slightly stuck? - etc. It's just a matter of what the person with the particular method found works for them and expects to work for others. Try closing your eyes, putting your fingers out and imagining 'feeling' one of the primary surfaces in the target. You're looking for the same thing essentially... just not necessarily forcing it to be tied to the pen on paper. People will get data in slightly different sequence, they will get slightly different kinds of data often within that, and it just takes a lot of practice to see what is working for you and what isn't. If you're using someone else's method (which many in this field are), just do what you can. If the detail of the method doesn't work for you, be creative. Come up with a few other ways that you might acquire that same kind of data in that place, and try those instead. Just like some people learn visually, more audio-based, more kinesthetically, in RV people are going to respond differently to data and to the process itself. Every human is different. You're not doing anything 'wrong' except that it's not happening for you. Now that may be some psychology thing (left brain = "There is only paper here, everything else would be delusion") but the end result is just that it isn't working. You can either explore why and keep working on it, as practice can often entrain you to do it more like someone's structure, or start working on creating your own unique ways of getting data you need. Regards, PJ

// 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