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 : 893-908 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/893?)
22:33:16
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#893

From: "nita...ulse.com" Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 12:41 pm Subject: Re: 'Real' RV nitahickok Hi PJ I have things that I do that I call psychic. I am proud that I am a natural and psychic. I do more psychic stuff than RV because I have had some experiences with the RV community that have not been good. I have a lot of people I like. I also see a lot of people belittling others for the same things that they are doing themselves. I see no set ethics or standards which has been discussed before in other posts. I do see this lack as planned so others can jump on, discredit and humiliate others to make themselves feel better. The instructors can't agree and the students go into argumentative camps where doing anything is the cause of a argument in one way or another. I enjoy the RV stuff that I do but it is because I am working with nice people. I think RV will not survive unless someone ends this squabbling and sets some standards to end the discord over what is or isn't RV. I consider it mainly the scientific method to prove what you get psychically. It is because the people doing it are using psi abilities and the person who set it up just compartmentalized and formatted what a psychic does naturally. Everyone is trying to be exclusive and special. They never think of all the people that worked upon proving this scientifically. It is their methodology and not something to be rewritten where it can be discredited. I see very little respect in the claims the teachers make to earn money. The hard working ones trying to give valid results do not do it in any set time limit. It is the persons talent and practice that does that. Nita Whenever you hear that someone else has been successful, rejoice. Always practice rejoicing for others-whether they are your friend or enemy. If you cannot practice rejoicing, no matter how long you live, you will not be happy. Lama Zopa Rinpoche, "Transforming Problems into Happiness". Reply | Forward

#896

From: "PJ Gaenir" Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 4:44 pm Subject: Re: 'Real' RV dennanm Hi Nita, > I have things that I do that I call psychic. > I am proud that I am a natural and psychic. So.... you don't feel some strange embarrassment about being associated with the term 'psychic'? I'm glad. I don't know why so many people seem to. Considering these are the same people that are destroying and diffusing the term 'RV' in the same that's been done to the term 'psychic', it's sort of ironic. > I do more psychic stuff than RV because I have had some > experiences with the RV community that have not been good. I assume you mean this in the context of who you associate with? Since 'doing' RV technically doesn't require others. > I see no set ethics or standards which has been > discussed before in other posts. Well as far as 'standards' go, there are very official standards as what qualifies as RV, but nobody wants to hear about them I'm afraid. Then there are a separate group of standards that would be had for each methodology -- I assume it varies with the method. But as far as "ethical" standards, as long as RV is run more like a Tony Robbins workshop than a dojo, that's going to be the way it is. > I do see this lack as planned so others > can jump on, discredit and > humiliate others to make themselves feel better. Planning infers the field is organized, which it's not very. :-) > The instructors can't agree Ah, well, they've never agreed. That's okay, because none of the instructors teach and enforce after-training the fundamental RV standards of work (double-blind/solo-blind), which means as a whole they don't agree with the fundamental definition of RV anyway. So the first schizm comes with deviating from the basic required standards that define RV as separate from 'psychic' work; the second then comes when there is more than one methods for obtaining psychic data. > and the students go into argumentative camps > where doing anything is the > cause of a argument in one way or another. A little more practice and a lot less griping would be nice in this field I agree. (I love to gripe. So I'm guilty too, lol.) > I think RV will not survive unless someone > ends this squabbling and Well, I said that years ago, but I see it survived. > sets some standards to end the discord > over what is or isn't RV. Those standards already exist. As long as the methods instructors refuse to teach *and encourage* those standards be followed by students after training, not much is going to happen, and I'm not holding my breath on that. > I consider it mainly the scientific method > to prove what you get psychically. I consider it mainly the learning theory method to be sure one is utilizing psi and not many other subtle senses; and an operations method to be sure a session can be at least mildly calibrated with the actual target; and a psychological method to change some of the more fundamental belief systems we hold; I think the science aspect of the protocol (and I mean by 'the RV protocol', "double-blind w/feedback" -- not "how you go about it/methods") is just one of many important reasons for it. > the person who set it up just compartmentalized and > formatted what a psychic does naturally. Swann is not the only person to have done that. And if you read Swann's books you'll see that, at least during the times he writes about, he certainly was not using anything akin to CRV; he was visualizing projecting himself out of body for godssakes -- more a Silva type technique than CRV. CRV was designed as a method of *training* non-psychics first and foremost -- of removing the belief system issues which are the primary problem by projecting the psi onto the method instead of the person, and of forcing an external structure to recognize data types and 'flavors' that would eventually teach a customized "internal" structure psychics must use for recognizing these things. But the idea that RV did not exist except for Ingo, that research with a psychic in an RV protocol was never done until Ingo, or that a psychic methodology that might be helpful never existed excepting Ingo's, is really silly. RV has become a social cult. I said that eons ago and it's weird to me that it isn't obvious to everybody. > Everyone is trying to be exclusive and special. > They never think of all > the people that worked upon proving this > scientifically. It is their > methodology and not something to be rewritten > where it can be discredited. The RV methodologies have not been 'proven' scientifically. Ingo did not have baseline before/after studies -- he wasn't even in lab oversight during most of it, he was offsite. I think that is a pretty big insult to be honest, from Dr. Puthoff (an otherwise brilliant and I'm told charming man) who apparently was willing to allot the project budget to make Ingo happy but I guess didn't take his ideas seriously enough to really treat them with the real science evaluation that they deserved. Ingo had a lot of good ideas and I see a lot of problems today as probably stemming from lack of proper research on what he was doing way back when. He is/was a great psychic and a brilliant man, and I think he deserved better. When CRV was finally tested along with a couple dozen other methods -- including lots of general public as well as expert viewers, lots of time and practice for improvement, etc. -- research results were that no method was really any better than another, and no method produced better results in the end than someone with zero method, given 5 minutes of instruction about relaxing, trying not to label etc. As for the various components of CRV, few of them originated with Ingo. As he pointed out himself, he was "compiling" what he felt was the best stuff from a variety of fields, eras and people. In the end, I know three people who can really kick ass at RV. That's all -- I mean who are *really* good. One has enough training for about 42 people, but taught himself over time long before getting all that. One had training from an unmentionable offspring, LOL. And one had no training but a McMoneagle book and doing it like instructed. All of them say that it was doing constant practice -- like 2 or 3 targets a day, at least 5-6 days a week -- for about three years that finally got them to where, although they knew they'd miss sometimes, in general they felt somewhat confident about what they are doing. All of them are doing whatever they want to do, in which matching any method they've learned is purely coincidental, lol -- it is an individualized process. That pretty much matches the martial arts curve, which is about 3-4 days a week of "serious" practice, a little more near the end, for a blackbelt at about 5 years out; less if there is more practice. PJ Reply | Forward

#901

From: "smitty97006" Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 7:05 pm Subject: Re: 'Real' RV smitty97006 >PJ Wrote: > "When CRV was finally tested along with a couple dozen other methods > including lots of general public as well as expert viewers, lots of > time and practice for improvement, etc. -- research results were that > no method was really any better than another, and no method produced > better results in the end than someone with zero method, given 5 > minutes of instruction about relaxing, trying not to label etc." Hello PJ, I'd be curious if you could point me to this study. The part that particularly stikes me oddly is that someone with zero method given 5 minutes of instruction about relaxing etc is as effective as someone, such as an "expert viewer", who has done daily sessions for years. Do you really believe this? If its a fact then most people here, myself included, are just wasting a LOT of time. Sincerely, Gene Smith ---------------------------- Moderator's note: Hi Gene. Well either you interpreted something I didn't say or I just said it really badly! I'm sorry if so. I meant to say that comparatively (method vs. no-method), no particular method resulted in "better viewers" than not having one at all, either in the short term or the longer term given time to practice (both types, method/no-method, given time). In other words, shoulder to shoulder, whether day 1 or day 720, none of the methods stood out as providing significant improvement to either novice or experienced persons using it. There were several people involved in the study, consultants in learning theory and so forth. The study was done years ago but will be published next year. It was part of the StarGate research, but the program ended prior to the lab getting around to publishing it. Another research paper concerning the issue of viewer improvement over time will be published as well. I met Dr. Ed May as a side effect of that study. He was once interviewed and said something about paying thousands for training being, in his view, ridiculous, given that 20 minutes of instruction would harvest the same end results as the training would, and that people claiming training "would make someone a good remote viewer" (let alone the claims Ed Dames was making publicly) was literally fraud. He suggested that practice without training and practice with training were no different in the end as long as the practice was done in protocol. I look up his number, called him on the phone and ranted at him for indirectly insulting my personal CRV guru, hahahaha! I told him if it wasn't published for peer review, he had no right to publicly refer to it. I was a real jerk, as I'd been told all kinds of (it turns out untrue) stories about him by a couple people, I thought he was like the Evil White Coated One. He was a real gentleman, talked to me like an equal and didn't take offense. He agreed that this was correct, and that he would not do that publicly again until he had the time and money to get it published. Ironically, later he and others were criticized by skeptoids for not publicly disowning the whole methods-madness CRV field since it wasn't scientific and the term was being used wrongly, which inferred/impinged on the credibility of RV in the lab. But he did not speak up, due I believe to our conversation. I don't think people are wasting time or I certainly wouldn't be involved in all this! I do think that regardless of the "measured accuracy in terms of the lab" is concerned, that people DO get better -- perhaps in many ways that don't directly translate to "more hits" only to "better data" per hit. I used to believe that without "training", a person just wouldn't be as good, that training was a big step up. Now I believe it really depends on the person. I think for some people training is as much harm as help, and I think people can become just as good without a method if they just practice regularly, properly blind w/feedback. I've encountered hundreds of people trained in the last seven years and probably about 80 that weren't or were 'psychics', and other than those who were already said to be skilled when I met them, the only viewers I've personally known who became really good were those who practiced, properly, nearly obsessively, for several years. With or without a method. With CRV or SRV for example. Method type, or lack thereof, didn't matter. It seemed to be the personal drive, and the constant practice, and the doing it fully blind w/feedback, those things seem to be the core points. I would say the psychology was the key but actually, I think whether people really do practice constantly and properly is itself the statement about where their psychology is with it. Everybody tells me they get better. Maybe not at target contact but at knowing what the hell to do with it when they get it. So I think that is really what we are all working for. There of course are a lot of people I don't know, so I'm only one perspective. And perhaps my definition of a good viewer is a little tighter than some people's because I'm spoiled by friendships with a few people that are pretty darn good at it. Actually that doesn't help MY viewing, I was overcritical of myself right out the gate, and have only gotten moreso since seeing what others can do. If I can just get my schedule worked out to get the practice in, I think... eventually... I'll be ok. :-) I assume everybody else will be too. PJ Reply | Forward

#908

From: "Eva" Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:59 pm Subject: Re: 'Real' RV k9caninek9 You can change the label on something over and over again, but the stigma that the subject carries will tend to follow the subject and not get shaken off by the label. It may work at first, but as soon as the person sees that the subject is the same, they will reattach the stigma to it (if they carried stigma for it that is). I just think it is more than hilarious that people think they can call it 'remote viewing' and somehow avoid the stigma that is attached to psi. If you explain rv to any layman, the first thing they will think is that you are talking about psi. The only solution is to try to educate people about the realities of psi and that is just not an easy task. It takes time and effort and an open mind on the part of the listener. There is no short cut for that and insisting over and over that rv is not psi will just tend to confuse and piss off a skeptical listener. Anyway, that's my opinion on it and I'm sure it will irk some people, but what they hey, I feel kind snippety tonight! ;-) -E ------------------------- Moderator's note: LOL. Well I agree that educating people about psi is the real answer. RV *is* psychic functioning. A FEW people might have been prone to giving RV the tiniest shred more credibility than 1-900 because of it's scientific nature. But now that everybody calls everything RV, the term is diluted beyond use anyway. I guess my main confusion is that people won't just call plain psi work psychic work. It's like it's some embarrassment or they just want to be 'cool' like stargate or claim the science history. I think you're right -- in the end, since it is psychic work, one really just needs to educate others about psi. P.S. Good luck on that part. ;-) -- PJ Reply | Forward

#902

From: aeonblueau8008... Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 5:01 pm Subject: Re: 'Real' RV terri8008 IMO.. RV needed to be (or wanted to be) distinguished from the everyday psychic or street corner psychic (and it earned it IMO). Everyone is psychic. RV (hopefully) was/is a bit more to the point and stream-lined, and some feel you (needed) to learn it, can learn it, and it can be taught. Just learning/adopting a session structure is highly beneficial. Generally as I've watched and seen folks seem to naturally gravitate, be attracted to "their" teacher, good bad bogus pro con. I've tossed out coords for years on lots of lists, and if i'm dealing with psychics, general public, the first question is... "what is that". Some psychics want frontloading.. that's fine but tell me something I/we don't know, it rarely happens, if ever, on lists anyway. I'd rather deal and work with someone somewhat trained in some form of RV. We then are (somewhat) working on the same sheet of music and can understand each other. If RV fades to just "psychic", (even more catch all) well, I for one couldn't post a set of coords to a PSI list and have everyone respond with what is that. After you are trained or taught or tutored or have a clue as to what you are doing and have developed structure as tho it's second nature.. then you begin to explore and play around with different techniques, that's a given. Everyone does that. Then you start discovering things about RV and about your self, you push the window, take off your training wheels. Some share, some don't and what works for some simply won't work, will never work for another. I did and do, as a rule it sucks, my sessions, as seen public on Ev's list.. some for Mary A way back on innerlight list, some of those are pretty bad. Maybe I haven't played around enough(lazy), but when I fall back to what works for me, well i'm just an ERVer and that works for me and i'm content with that. I'm not too good at anything else, cards, colors, dowsing, coin tosses, spoon bending, ESP or RI. Pretty good with pre cog tho.. I always fall back to the same ole same ole. I prefer (have to be) to be totally blind, but that works best for me. I prefer a monitor. But that's the way I was raised and in that I trust (because I like the results). A good Monitor (compliments) takes reduces stress off your session, you don't have to think/control (as much). Somewhere sometime there must be feedback, IMO RV requires feedback to work or come full circle (1 day 1 hour 1 year 100 years from now). I don't need to see or know it, and I must have complete trust in who/whom I work with, but it must exist. Some of that.. all of that is what might set an RVer apart from just being labeled psychic. We are all psychic. Folks take different labels. Some are empaths, so right off you know their quals. Some are clairvoyant, a bit different but you know their quals and what to expect. Some are readers, some are dowsers etc. et. It just comes down to debating labels.. but labels help to define IMO. You just find your nitch.. call it whatever you want, but in general folks on an RV list sorta expect that (as opposed to a general catch all PSI list). I don't have any problem with the label of RV.. usually that comes from folks who don't understand what RV is or does or who are forever trying to change it. Just about every PSI skill/utilized is- remote viewed. ~~Terri. pjrv : Messages : 889-917 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/889?)
22:33:45
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#889

From: "PJ Gaenir" Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:09 am Subject: 'Real' RV dennanm This is moved from PEM to the list, as I'd like to hear what others think about this topic. > It just seems kind of convenient that some people can say that > nothing is rv unless it has feedback. Well, the formal RV protocol requires only that feedback exist SOMEDAY. That may be, that 100 years from now, there is feedback, and someone compares your session to it. Obviously, this is a pretty unworkable labeling process for the process outside of a lab, there is no doubt. But I happen to believe that non-fully-blind RV, or that without any feedback at all (e.g., The Galactic Hall), shouldn't be called RV anyway. I don't know what the big knee-jerk terror is about calling it psychic work for godssakes. Everybody wants the association with RV because of its "scientific" background, but then most won't do a thing toward doing it in a scientific (double blind or solo blind, with some form of feedback) protocol. That's so weasel-ish. There is no reason why viewers cannot simply refer to their work as RV or psychic depending on the protocol -- if they say psychic it would mean, the monitor was not blind, or the target was a person and the psychic was not blind, or the target was blind but there is as yet zero feedback to judge accuracy[*see below], or whatever. There is no shame -- I have seen people do a session knowing what the target was right up front and still kick ass on details they didn't know. People like McMoneagle -- criminy, he must know what the target probably IS just a few minutes into it, he's so freakin psychic, which means the rest of the session is non-blind! I actually think even learning to work frontloaded to varying degrees is eventually necessary, not to do all the time, but to be able to do in a hard situation without getting totally thrown by it. It just isn't fair to RV as a field people worked hard to give some legitimacy to, to do non-legit stuff and use the same term. It has trashed the definition of RV, now some labs call it "anomalous cognition", a dense enough term nobody in the public is likely to steal it. At this point the term is useless I suppose. It is no worse to call non-feedback work RV than it is to call non- double-blind work RV. There is a major double standard of sorts in part of the methods world, where they can work severely out of protocol and they'll call it RV anyway, but god forbid someone should do a target double-blind but without feedback -- "that isn't RV!" It's bogus -- neither are RV in a formal sense. And if we're not in a 'formal' sense because someone thinks that only matters in a lab, well, one situation is not better than the other. Besides. When you think about it, even RV formally has limits on feedback. A viewer can get a ton of data that is not apparent from a feedback photograph. What, does one break down every word as being RV or non-RV? Many anomalous targets DO have feedback, they just don't have feedback on the details or the cause or whatever. However, if a person double blind or solo blind and truly NOT frontloaded with nature of the target, does a session for example, where the target turns out to be a sighting of mysterious lights, or a crop circle, or whatever, the nature of the target itself does give SOME feedback. We know that the physical reality was mysterious lights or a crop circle. If a *double-blind* session turns up data that clearly correlates with what aspects of the target we DO know, then I am willing to consider seriously the rest of the data, even if it doesn't have feedback. If you RV a crop circle, and you are truly double-blind or solo-blind (no unspoken frontloading like many groups working together or on certain projects have), and your data ends up having enough points in common with the target to suspect you were on target, I call that RV. It was done in protocol. It has feedback. OK, it does not have feedback on the ORIGIN of it. But then, the average target of a bridge does not have feedback on its origin or lifespan now does it? You could RV a bridge and get that there were people on it repairing it and your feedback doesn't show that, but maybe there are or were, who would know? I once -- back in '96 -- viewed a partial shot of the top of a skyscraper, and got an entire bilocation 3rd-person experience, had NO idea what the hell that was all about, but one of the very CLEAR pieces of information in the experience was that it was taking place in an executive's big office very near the top of a really tall building. Well, I've got no feedback on 99.9% of my session, but I still call it RV, because the feedback I did have, matched well enough with a specific part of my data, for me to believe my data was related. I don't claim that data was 'true'. But I call the session RV. Half the reason that operations need to be doubleblind as much as the lab, is it is so important there be some way to validate whether the viewer may be on target, and how accurate their session is. Every general gestalt or tiny detail that a viewer might get through non- psi means, trashes the ability of an analyst, who desperately needs some 'benchmarks' on the viewer session, to compare the session with reality. In the ops world, viewers don't get much feedback. But the good ones continue practicing with detail feedback, as it is a constant learning/swimming/changing process and they need to stay sharp. So most of the feedback issues are oriented toward viewer-skill, and session-validation (even if only in tiny parts) in ops, and session evaluation in the lab. If a viewer works properly blind and has *some* form of feedback -- a photo of an archeological artifact, a crop circle photo, a newspaper story about lights in the sky -- then I call it RV. Now, the Galactic Hall is another story. Because there is NO feedback at ALL, we do not know that the target even exists beyond "thoughtform" stage. And even physical things with zero feedback -- e.g., "I think there is a secret underground lab of the reptilians at these coordinates" it's back to the thoughtform problem again, until there is at least one piece of hard data we can consider feedback. Say we did a session and describe a secret underground base. Say the feedback is a picture from an airplane of a corn patch. It's "bad" RV because it doesn't match the feedback. I would not necessarily believe a word of the session. But, if feedback should turn up that correlates to session -- a photo showing that place with bulldozers 100' down 14 years ago -- then we might throw away the concept that it's 'bad' RV (missed/wrong) and say, now we don't know how good the session is, but it still IS RV because it has feedback, and there is correlating data to the viewer's session, so it's worth seeing. Given the list of RV no-no's one can be guilty of, I'll do targets without 'detail' feedback any day, and call it RV if there is SOME feedback that I can match up to my session. I would not, however, outside some deliberate trial to test or practice such, ever do something out of protocol -- non-double/solo-blind -- or with zero/zero feedback ('the galactic hall' stuff). Anything else that might come along, for any reason, I would consider psychic. Not RV. No big deal. I get that stuff too. My "spontaneous" experiences are "psychic", not RV. That's fine. PJ Reply | Forward

#907

From: "Eva" Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:46 pm Subject: Re: 'Real' RV k9caninek9 That was a small snippet from a very long PEM. What I meant was that I sometimes hear it said that if you rv aliens or crop circles or whatever, then it's not rv cuz there is no feedback (that can be assured). I can't accept that. RV is a method and if you follow the method, then it is rv. How the information comes is not known so how can one make an unknown and unprovable theory (ie that a living entity must know the answer in order for an rver to get the answer) a requirement for the label of rv? That makes no sense. Now obviously, if a person is not 100% accurate with their rv (and I know of no one who is), then the answers that are surmised on the esoteric target can't be assumed to be 100% either. That's just common sense too. But it's still rv as far as I am concerned. -E > This is moved from PEM to the list, as I'd like to hear what others > think about this topic. > > It just seems kind of convenient that some people can say that > > nothing is rv unless it has feedback. -------------------- Moderator's note: RV isn't a method technically though, it is a protocol (set of rules to use ANY method "within"). CRV was methods designed to be used within that protocol, hence its RV name. It isn't really Ingo's fault that so few choose to use his methods in that context alas. But the part about feedback in the protocol - that has nothing to do with the assumption that someone alive has to know the answer like because someone assumes that is 'how' psi works. Nobody knows how psi works, as you point out. So if that were the reason it'd be stupid. Feedback is only part of the protocol but it is a *science* protocol, and without feedback, results cannot be measured. And if it cannot be measured, it isn't science. The term was coined to specifically describe what *science* was doing. Hence to use the term, even outside a science lab, if you match the primary protocol points one can legitimately call it RV. But when major protocol pieces (blinding, feedback) vanish, it's no longer the thing the term was coined to mean... though it is still psychic, obviously. I happen to think a crop circle target IS remote viewing. You don't have feedback on the origin, but that goes for lots of non-esoteric stuff too. You do have it on physically provable end result. -- PJ Reply | Forward

#917

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Thu Oct 24, 2002 8:36 pm Subject: Re: Re: 'Real' RV docsavagebill Hi PJ and Eve, > Moderator's note: RV isn't a method technically > though, it is a protocol (set of rules to use ANY > method "within"). CRV was methods designed to be > used within that protocol, hence its RV name. I've read this before in Joe's book. But it was never clear to me WHAT the "protocol " was. Other than it was doing psi blind to the viewer. Websters: "PROTOCOL def

#4" :

a detailed plan of a scientific or medical experiment, treatment, or procedure OK so RV is a plan for a psi experiment.. but what plan? Is it a plan for doing blind psi session of any type? Is it a blind psi session done with feedback? What is it? And I'm not taking a thing from the tremendous work the SRI and Ft Meade people did. But I don't think it was ever meant to be ONE THING! IT WAS bootstrap pragmatic attempts to do psychic spying in any way that worked. And what worked has been termed RV. But I don't think it is One Thing. Its a collection of ideas and methods and protocols that werre used at SRI and at Ft meade IMHO. Best Regards, Bill ---------------------------- Moderator's note: Well everybody except the few people Ingo trained (and that legacy) knows what "a good RV Protocol" is, including Ingo. Either he didn't bother passing that on (which I doubt, given even the CRV manual is clear about even training being done double blind past stage 3, let alone ops), or they just didn't feel like being 'inconvenienced' by it (which usually means people aren't doing so well IN it as out of it). Had this been taken a little more seriously, I suspect legions of RV methods students would not be bewildered about it. "Bootstrap" is a really good term that works for methods -- but not for the primary rules those methods fit in, which were well defined 10++ years before Swann even began his development of CRV methods. -- PJ pjrv : Messages : 903-919 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/903?)
22:33:57
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#903

From: "nita...ulse.com" Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 9:27 pm Subject: Re: Re: 'Real' RV nitahickok Hi PJ I have to admit that your reasons are better than mine on most of these things. I am talking about standardizing it where everyone can see the strengths and weakness's of a RV school including whether or not people follow the protocol. The ethics is another subject because I have been on the short end of the stick on a number of issues. I have been stalked, lied about, harassed and threatened by a person. The very people who knew this stuck up for the person doing it. I had been threatened by the person for no reason. They had convictions for stalking others. They are still on a lot of the lists acting like a expert trolling for new people to abuse. The reason this happened is because I became friends with the very people I met them with at a conference. I have had people bounce checks to me and then say I didn't have any ethics. I wasn't the one who acted incorrectly and bounced checks. I have been bewildered by the people living in their own realities. You are right about it being a social cult. The ARVer's have been a breath of fresh air. They are reality oriented and try to do a good job. They try to stick to the protocol and they treat people nicely. I mentioned Ingo but a lot of people also helped to bring about the manual. It is still just a way to become psychic. It is nothing to be ashamed of in any way. I am really more of a mystic in some ways but a psychic is just someone who uses psi abilities. I feel that the main reason to be ashamed of what you are is because you don't know how to be a real person and accept yourself. I am a RVer when I use the protocol. I am a mystic and psychic when I do the other work. I am just a person who is dealing with reality otherwise. Nita Whenever you hear that someone else has been successful, rejoice. Always practice rejoicing for others-whether they are your friend or enemy. If you cannot practice rejoicing, no matter how long you live, you will not be happy. Lama Zopa Rinpoche, "Transforming Problems into Happiness". Reply | Forward

#912

From: Timelord2029... Date: Thu Oct 24, 2002 2:46 am Subject: Re: Re: 'Real' RV psitrooper24 >in the end, since it is psychic work, one really just >needs to educate others about psi. P.S. Good luck on >that part. ;-) -- PJ well I find the best way is to show them first hand what its about. There are a numeber of ways but if you cant demonstrate it yourself, show them REAL demonstartions or RV projects from sites over the web, (try avoiding sites that say we are the only RV group on earth) 2nd get them to try it for themselves. Most people ive met heard about RV from the Discovery Channel and re runs of the brilliant 2hour documentary "Billion Dollar Secret" by Jane's Defence Weekly editor Nick cook which features Lyn Buchanon and ..Jim Marrs which is shown on a regular basis here in the UK. Funny that because that documentary ends with RV/Ufo's/ piloting ufos and alien abductions with the author finding the RV part more facinating than what the program was all about in the first place. I think Nick got more than he bargained for that time LOL Peace, Tunde Reply | Forward

#919

From: "Pame" Date: Fri Oct 25, 2002 3:40 am Subject: Re: Re: 'Real' RV elittlestar HI would you consider this feedback ok, do you think that this information from cnn will help clear the light on ufo info.? and we may now get more feedback data that will not be considered esoteric ... can this change thinking! http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/10/22/ufo.records/index.html pame ------------------------ Moderator's note: Cool! Hope the demand works! :-) I'd surely vote in favor of removing all the secrecy stuff around UFOs.... 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