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 : 1870-1870 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1870?)
23:29:45
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1870

From: "David Humphries" Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 10:13 pm Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter a_healey56 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 It looks like PJ finally has a formidable opponent - but can you type as fast as she can? :-) > Rachel the Verbose > (no, PJ, this wasn't the session I mentioned to you. > That's still waiting to be typed. I don't even have > it on me so it'll wait.) pjrv : Messages : 1869-1975 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1869?)
23:32:20
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1869

From: "Rocheleh" Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 3:30 pm Subject: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter rochelehhakt... Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 I've typed this up a few days ago on my notebook, but I haven't had a chance to send it before. ~~~~ I've did Pru's "Your very first session" target from her Aurora Bomb online training files earlier this day, and while I'm still in an RV-ish mood, I'm going to type my session up. It's possible that it's still not intermediate enough for this list, but I've commented my session before feedback in CRV lingo because I felt that offered me another shot at interpretation. So, this is a Pruish-CRV session, and this way, it may be a little more than a 101-level session... at least I hope so. It's probably not more -sigh- At least you'll see some stuff made by me for the first time. I'm also planning on doing Farview targets (beware, analysts! I should be less verbose, I know.). I don't have a scanner here, I might have access to a graphics tablet in a few days' time so the best I can come up with is to trace the sketches. (I guess the ideograms would look silly redrawn - they'd lose dynamic.) Coming Soon, you'll have to make do with text descriptions till then, sorry... It's typed twice, once without comments (TDS), once with both pre(CRV)- and post-feedback(disorganized) comments. Trained folks will no doubt die upon looking at what a mess I made of the neatly organised art of CRV... -sigh- Well, don't scroll down too much is all I can say... Feedback is here: http://www.aurorabomb.com/objective1.html Page 1 ------ Header: B"H [this is a Jewish shorthand that one writes upon starting to write something... it is short for Baruch HaShem, Blessed is the Name [of G-d]. It's actually written in Hebrew, this is a transliteration.] Rachel 2002. 12. 25. 18:11 Dir: Fuzzy Peanut Butter [TDS directive. Another way to ID a session.] Viewer Blind Solo PS - I have a cold and I feel as if I had to go to the toilet (I just did, this is probably because of the excitement) ES - I'm excited - I was happy just a minute ago, but then [short description of family business that don't really belong on a list - the end result is 'i'm not happy any longer'] MS - d3 Tag: 8972 0976 (TDS Transit line) Page 2 ------ [Ideogram] A: up-arch-down-arch-up-zigzag contrasted solid B: cliff, chasm? No. The large thing rises up. C: metal grey white large Statue of Liberty calm brown little bear furry, soft bored sour taste dusty water D: [sketch of a cube - representation of space - and in it, a towering shape. _____ \ / I I I I / \ / \ --------- ] Page 3 ------ [Ideogram] A: up-down-across steep sharp soft B: edge C: soft "gooey" [in English] green flat little bumps white, curved snow ski jumping struct. black, grey down across, green D: [drawing of a wave, a little figure doing ski, greenish little bumps and indentations to the right - the indentations drawn separately as well, in multiple views to let the 3D show] Page 4 ------ [Ideogram] A: up-plateau (means also "roof")-down-U curve soft curved B: something large, indentation C: bluish-green diagonal lines grey, empty something boring, not like Pru at all red, lilac, striking noise clowns upward movement to the left hard, solid, grey, large hill, dune A-bomb blue, soft, "fluffy clouds" [in English] Dizzy carpet D: [a mountainish thing, little diagonal lines on it, an indentation on the right side. An A-bomb drawn in the middle of it :) a carpet to the right, fluffy clouds above it. Clowns in front. Well, Pru said one should draw what one wrote, LOL!] Page 5 ------ OC: flat hard hurts metallic solid aggressive pills white plastic semi-transparent white soft cold dizzying height funny empty green pain tired shallow water NYC sea blast soft, smooth fine giggling green, grass [unreadable...oy] large open small things hanging threads emptiness (again) grey nothing large, closed space short tall, long vapour, hot vapour cooling tower some tower fence red yellow lighthouse panda bear LOL! [yes, I wrote "LOL" in-session] happiness nice furry children they are having fun there is no more data Trabant [an East German make of car, the above three lines rhyme a bit in the original] exhaust gas grey frequency (of words) [a make of painkiller] painkiller sea sickness <-> against height honesty Page 6 is a large, complicated sketch. It's a towering something with "air" around it and lots of small indentures on the ground surface, with "NOISE" at the bottom of the tower structure. The structure has "something in it??" and an opening to the right of it. Small vertical lines are drawn on it alongside "grass??". Along its left edge there's an arrow showing "small things upward movement". Yes, and the whole thing's symmetrical save the opening to the right - unlike sketches 2 and 3. Text at the indentures says "an other type of texture". Text to the left of the structure says "there's nothing important here" and to the right says "but here there is". There is an other sketch of a Teddy bear, with the text "no interpretable relation between the two". Additional text reads "1 artificial - 1 natural inside". Pru part ends and CRV notes starts at 18:47. I copy the whole thing again, I didn't want to create confusion with the CRV notes added at the first time - the original I did with different colours. My after-feedback remarks directed to the list are in [] brackets. The other remarks are pre-feedback. Yes, and it's entirely possible I messed up CRV terminology. I'm a world-class newbie. (Are those still called lamers? ;) ) Ask if something is not clear. Page 2 ------ [Ideogram] A: up-arch-down-arch-up-zigzag contrasted solid B: cliff, chasm? No. The large thing rises up. [LOL, I really write such awkward sentences!] C: metal grey white large Statue of Liberty - AOL - large grey metallic structure famous calm brown little bear - AOL - soft furry brown play loved "fuzziness" - possibly all of this is overlay from Directive [it's undeclared AI as you'll see below] furry, soft bored sour taste dusty water D: [sketch of a cube - representation of space - and in it, a towering shape. _____ \ / I I I I / \ / \ --------- ] next to the sketch: AOL that went undeclared: cooling towers for atomic power plant warm hot vaporous foggy atom danger aggressive [the end is probably for A-bomb, not as much as for power plant... I actually support peacetime atomic power usage but that's off-topic] Page 3 ------ [Ideogram] A: up-down-across steep sharp soft B: edge C: soft "gooey" [in English] green flat little bumps white, curved snow ski jumping thing [I don't know the English offhand] - AOL - structure, upward movement black, grey down across, green D: [drawing of a wave, a little figure doing ski, greenish little indent. to the right - the indentations drawn separately as well, in multiple views to let the 3D show] next to the sketch: it's possible that all of this is moving and then this is windsurfing (just a stray thought but it came in rather strong) additional little sketch: a rectangle, a line moving toward the right. "movement this way - whole picture" Page 4 ------ [Ideogram] A: up-plateau (means also "roof")-down- U curve soft curved B: something large, indentation C: bluish-green diagonal lines grey, empty something boring, not like Pru at all - AI bigtime! [well, I read "Tastes like Chicken" and I thought I was in for something really really weird as a target... compared to those expectations, it was boring, but otherwise not :) This target was a lot better than the previous ones I did. You remember my all-so-boring target pool, right?] red, lilac, striking noise clowns - AOL - happiness, noise - AI upward movement to the left hard, solid, grey, large hill, dune - single upward natural undifferentiated structure A-bomb - came thru from previous undeclared AOL? blue, soft, "fluffy clouds" E Dizzy - AOL to "fluffy clouds" - egg-shaped, white, bit of red, happiness, funny, "warmth" comparable to bear [this Dizzy is the old computer game character... anyone remembers him? I _loved_ those games.] carpet - red, yellow, thatched (drawing of crossed lines) patterns, threads D: [a mountainish thing, little diagonal lines on it, an indentation on the right side. An A-bomb drawn in the middle of it :) a carpet to the right, fluffy clouds above it. Clowns in front. Well, Pru said one should draw what one wrote, LOL!] Page 5 ------ OC: flat hard hurts [now, I don't know how _this_ made it into my session. Maybe the "healing effect" later on. The whole "transformation hurts" idea is rather central to me, but I didn't make the connection this time.] metallic solid aggressive pills - AOL white sour healing effect? compare later white [I disassembled the image of "pills" in the following lines...] plastic semi-transparent white soft cold dizzying height funny AI empty green pain tired shallow water NYC sea - AOL - structure rising up from water, something on its top (the top comes later) I get the feeling it's a surfer [LOL! If only I knew] blast soft, smooth fine giggling green, grass - AOL - natural small repeated things [unreadable...oy] large open small things hanging threads - compare "natural small repeated things" emptiness (again) grey nothing large, closed space short tall, long [LOL! short and tall at the same time. Well, one of them inevitably fits, but I want to avoid ambiguousness even if it means I won't do as good. "You have to be cruel to be kind, you have to leave the past behind...la la la" - I wonder which song this was in.] vapour, hot vapour cooling tower - AOL carried over from power plant some tower fence - red white metallic edge water red white [this "red white" thing is from Dizzy I guess, which is probably still the undeclared AI-ness] lighthouse panda bear LOL! [yes, I wrote "LOL" in-session] happiness - AI nice - AI furry - AI [yes, I actually marked this as AI at this point... but it was too late to erase the bear. I didn't make the connection completely.] children - group life-forms young they are having fun "there is no more data" [there WAS no more, apparently] Trabant [an East German make of car, the above three lines rhyme a bit in the original] exhaust gas grey frequency (of words) [a make of painkiller] painkiller - compare "pills" above sea sickness <-> against - undeclared AOL from pills height honesty I didn't write anything on the sketch after the CRV lingo part. I should have - X out the bear and write "feeling of being protected" or something like that next to it. I was apparently too green to make the connection completely consciously (after I did semi-consciously when I marked the simple descriptive "furry" as AI). Well, this was my very first target that had anything considerably metaphorical in it... no, wait, I had one previously, but that was frontloaded like hell. So that doesn't really count. And I didn't go for anything metaphorical, I thought I'd be cool enough if I described the looks of it. That messed up things for sure, as I wanted to interpret everything as physicals. My bad! Overall, I guess this was a rather good session compared to my previous ones (especially the final composite sketch), but then again, the target was also rather good compared to my previous ones :) (Now you have a clue just how bad my previous sessions were.) And now a few questions for Pru. (Oy, maybe she's the only one who's read it this far! It must've been rather boring.) There is no such thing mentioned as overlay in the Aurora Bomb files this far. Is it not included in the TDS system at all or does it come only later? I've found them useful, and failing to identify overlay in this session brought in a whole Teddy bear for me as you saw :) I'd find them necessary, but maybe that's only me - the only part I like in Freudian theory is the defence mechanisms, so that says something about me... I'm a Cognitive at heart. Something that will sound quite stupid, I'm afraid: just how large paper are you using for sessions? Whenever you write "you should be at one third of the page", I'm at less that one fifth. I use standard A4 size paper (210 X 294 mm), but maybe the United States has different standards. (And A5 is too small.) This way, there are too large open spaces left, and because I'm also an environment-conserving type at heart, it keeps on disturbing me somehow. (Folks, don't laugh! This is my Serious Problem(tm)! ) And struggling to fill the Open Collector - I had half of the paper left empty, but I couldn't help it. Also, why is it important to draw exactly what one described? I feel, that way, stupid overlay can stick in and it's hard to banish later. (Even if I put down the pen. - That doesn't seem to work too well for me, in any structure, BTW... probably because I'm not the physical-movement-oriented sort of someone, I'm a lot more visual. Oh, maybe I should imagine an eraser?) At least, based on this one session. Or is the Matrix, which comes later, something to sort all that misinterpreted symbolic data out? Isn't that too late at that stage? It was good that it seemed to have structure where CRV lacked (well, the sort of CRV I made for myself considering I never had training anywhere) - like, you say to do three ideograms, three scans. CRV just says, do as you wish. But I need guidance everywhere, LOL! So I put the two together and presto! - furrows her brow - Well, I don't know how'll I do it in the long term, but these training files are fun. It's nice to know different methodologies, and you have a fun style that makes my - drama queen pose! - fear of psi issue reduce somewhat. Thanks! Now back to business, I still have things to say... The sample session snippets seem to contain (wow, four "s"s!) a lot of seemingly too-high level data, too, in parts C of the scans... I recall "Middle Eastern looking man" and such. So I assumed it was legit in TDS methodology and went and did so myself. Well, it _did_ add to the spontaneity, not having to think about all that protocol and just enjoying myself, having fun, sure - it was cool :) but it was also rather complicated to weed it out afterwards and I didn't even manage to completely do so. I wonder about that Matrix now - you got me hooked, when's the next update? ;) Rachel the Verbose (no, PJ, this wasn't the session I mentioned to you. That's still waiting to be typed. I don't even have it on me so it'll wait.) Reply | Forward

#1873

From: "Eva " Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 11:54 pm Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Rocheleh wrote: > It's possible that it's still not intermediate > enough for this list, but I've commented my session > before feedback in CRV lingo because I felt that > offered me another shot at interpretation. So, this > is a Pruish-CRV session, and this way, it may be a > little more than a 101-level session... ---LOL, I think you may be overestimating the rest of us! If the stuff is even vaguely legible, you may beat half the viewers in town! > at least I hope so. It's probably not more -sigh- > At least you'll see some stuff made by me for the first > time. I'm also planning on doing Farview targets > (beware, analysts! I should be less verbose, I know.). ---I have never heard a rule about verbosity. I know some viewers often wish they could get more data then they do so I wouldn't worry too much if you get a lot of stuff. Of course, a concise summary is at times nice, but there's nothing wrong with getting a lot of data. OFten if you don't get sucked too far into aol/castle building land, then the data will get better and better the longer you go. > I don't have a scanner here, I might have access to a > graphics tablet in a few days' time so the best I can > come up with is to trace the sketches. (I guess the > ideograms would look silly redrawn - they'd lose dynamic.) ---Ideos are unique to the person anyway so I am not sure how much others would gain from seeing them, other than just to see how unique ideos can look in the first place. > Coming Soon, you'll have to make do with text > descriptions till then, sorry... > It's typed twice, once without comments (TDS), once > with both pre(CRV)- and post-feedback(disorganized) > comments. Trained folks will no doubt die upon looking > at what a mess I made of the neatly organised art of > CRV... -sigh- Well, don't scroll down too much is > all I can say... ---Well it looks like you were coming in on the basic shape of the thing and on some of the aspects of it, especially in scan 1. I wonder if the fluffy clouds had to do with the 'heaven' aspect. I also wonder if there was grass lower down the steps out of sight. YOu could probably do a net search on the monument and find a pic that covered a bit more of the surroundings. -E Reply | Forward

#1886

From: "Prudence Calabrese " Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 10:35 am Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter largeruniverse Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi R! I will answer a couple of your questions here. I did send you a PEM inviting you to post your detailed thoughts and results at the Aurora Bomb forum, where other viewers in my group can read and comment and then you can get a variety of opinions and ideas. On Overlay: We don't use a formal declaration of overlay (AOL or Deduction). When you are a viewer, you are a storyteller. You have an experience with your objective, and then you tell that story on your paper, your session. Just like when you tell a story to a friend about something you saw at the Mall or your Mom's birthday party, you use direct physical details and analogy and metaphor to tell your story. Viewing is no different. You use a combination of ways to relay your experience. So, every piece of data is valid, though it may not be physically directly relevant. It's the job of you as a viewer in your session to think for a moment every time you draw a conclusion. We don't write the conclusion down as an AOL or Deduction because it's real data - you are just telling your story! But we do a short breakdown and tell your reader why the objective is like that conclusion. Say you are viewing something and you see a picture in your mind's eye of a firetruck, or perhaps you feel you are viewing a firetruck. What we do is sit for a moment and think why the ojective is like a firetruck. Then we will write something like this: "It's like a firetruck because it's fast, speeding, has wheels, and is red and noisy." Heck, it might be a firetruck. It also might be a sportscar. If you breakdown your perception the moment it happens, and honor your storytelling intuition by saying why your conclusion (firetruck) is being drawn, then you are home free. This really keeps constant AOLs from cluttering in a useless manner your sessions. No TDS sessions have AOLs, they just have data that has been broken down. We don't allow them, because THEY ARE NOT WRONG!!! They are pointers to what is occurring. The more you 'get into' telling your story, the less likely you are to get frazzled by worry about what it is and what it isn't. It becomes something exploratory and fun. We do have a summary and other aspects, but these have not yet been covered at Aurora Bomb. My webmaster, Susan Grober, had a baby six weeks ago, and so we are behind in uploading some materials, so have some patience. Cheers and Happy New Year!!! Pru Reply | Forward

#1888

From: "Eva " Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 10:23 pm Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 One assumption here is that aol=wrong. I'm not sure where that came from. I never learned it that way, although I can see why people might come to that conclusion. The way I learned it, aol in CRV means you write it in a diff place, stay neutral about it, and remember to focus on descriptives. But come time for the summary, you make your decision about an aol and are free to include it in the summary if you like. That's why I never really saw a conflict between the two methods. Label it or not, as far as I can see, you would still be doing the same thing, and that is making no judgements on the aol and focusing on descriptives. Each method just has a slightly diff spin on how that happens. -E > Pru wrote: > We don't use a formal declaration of overlay (AOL or Deduction). > [snip] We don't write the conclusion down as an AOL or > Deduction because it's real data - you are just telling your story! > [snip] We don't allow them, because THEY ARE NOT WRONG!!! > They are pointers to what is occurring. [snip] Reply | Forward

#1975

From: "PJ Gaenir " Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 12:14 am Subject: Personal notes about AOL/sessions dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email > Eva wrote (on 1/8): > that is making no judgements > on the aol and focusing on descriptives. I think something I've learned is that the whole concept of raw data and AOL is itself pretty flawed. Anything that makes it into an actual word is SOME degree of analytical interpretation -- it's just that it might be accurate is all. Technically there is only SUSPECTED 'AOL'. If it's accurate, it's not an "overlay" -- it's not our brain fixing something ELSE on TOP of data -- it's simply an accurate an interpretation of energy as your data "thick" or "blue" was. Technically we don't know what is AOL until feedback. What we call AOL is more like "suspected AOL." When I get deserts, I often get mass water like ocean. I think this is some weird response to the similarity on vast-surface or density (not-hard, you can put your hand in it) of sand or something, who the heck knows. Point is, 'water' and 'sand' are both analytical interpretations. Maybe they do not have as many details to them as something like "boat" or "childbirth" but they are both analytical because they have a word attached. Yet most people when they think of data, actually think that something like "brown" or "wood" is "RAW DATA" whereas something like "door" is an AOL. I don't see "wood" or "brown" as being any less analytical than door, it is just less complex and more conceptual as data is all. But when it boils up through the verbal/written processes to an actual word, it is then an analytical construction/communication of the sense. Different topic sort of: Recently it was pointed out to me that writing AOL on something in my session is a bit of an 'invalidation' of the data -- even though I technically only do it as 'recognition' as certain type of data, as I mentioned to Eva on the original thread I'm responding to here, I'm so aware of something (like "person") being AOL that I often spend the whole session semi-avoiding person-data so I don't let the AOL take me away and/or trying to make the person into something else because I'm sure all person-related data is 'probably AOL'. Well I wasn't sure how I felt about this really. The other night playing 'Battleship', I noticed something funny. My daughter and her dad both had the same response. 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. I actually starting chuckling to myself, realizing that in a way this might be some corollary to me and RV. That my breezy willingness to label any conceptual/complex data in my session as AOL was really my own RV version of saying, "miss!" -- just in case! So if it's right, fine, but if it's wrong, then *I* said it was wrong *first* LOL! 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. Another 'Battleship' related thing -- never let it be said that I don't learn from available opportunity LOL -- Sometimes I feel that a ship is in a certain area of the board, and I guess something there, and it's a miss. And maybe I guess a couple more, and they are misses. Now, this means little; there are 25 spaces in that section and it's going to take at least 11 to fairly well cover it so a 3-peg ship (let alone the 2-peg ship) couldn't be hiding there. So I go off and guess other places. Here's the thing though. There is no MORE chance, statistically, that the ships are somewhere ELSE, than there is that the ship(s) are in the area I thought they were but haven't yet guessed. Yet, if I don't get feedback pretty quick that I am right, then I assume I am wrong and/or don't want to risk a dozen turns on being totally wrong, so I wander around somewhere else. I thought of RV, and some of my sessions not long ago, and my unwillingness to easily "take a risk" and say, "ITS A PERSON!" and do the whole session based on that even if it IS wrong. So what, it's wrong. But since someone else is seeing the sessions, I have this fear-of-being-wrong-in-front-of-others ego issue I guess, that makes me unwilling to 'gamble'. In my own practice sessions, I gamble vastly more. I don't really care because nobody else is going to see it or judge me by it. In reality, I doubt anybody else is going to judge me by it anyway. The truth is mostly that I must consider myself a lot more important to other people than I really am, because I am sure they really do not give a damn whether my session sucks or not. But my ego... which has always spanned several large planetoids, is now approaching being a constellation all its own. This much territory is damn hard to protect, let me tell you. ;-) Next thing you know I will be paranoid just from the inability to clearly watch all my borders. ;-) Anyway these are just personal insights about my own self and RV. Might not apply to others. Regards, PJ Reply | Forward

#1898

From: "David " Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 3:21 pm Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter jam1433 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Prudence wrote: > We don't write the conclusion down as an AOL or > Deduction because it's real data - you are just > telling your story! But we do a short breakdown > and tell your reader why the objective is like > that conclusion." Thanks for that Pru. I have always had a big problem with just declaring AOL's and including very little actual descriptions of the images I get. In post-session analysis I usually always discover that if I had simply just described my aol's at length instead of putting a label on them, my session would have been much more successful on more on target. I was trained in CRV, but am open and eager to investigate and incorporate elements of other RV methods into my sessions. I have already mixed some of the elements that I picked up from Aurora Bomb with CRV, and so far I am beginning to see that my sessions are starting to get better. David Moore Reply | Forward

#1910

From: "Eva " Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 2:47 pm Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 David, my understanding of TDS system is that you put the label as well as the descriptors. Like you could say, "Toy dinosaur because it's big, fat, and purple." So you would still write down the aol word itself but just not put the word "aol" next to it. (if that makes sense) Instead, you would go ahead and break out the descriptors. Actually, CRV has something very similar called phase 5 (in Lyn terminology) in which you simply take an aol and write down a few descriptors that come immediately to mind. THe TDS system emphasizes this more so that you would be doing it on a regular basis, not just in a special 'phase' of the session. I have always kind of thought like that when I get an aol so I like that system. Whenever I get an aol, I like to think, 'Well what is it about this aol that sticks out to me?' Sometimes the thing/s that sticks out doesn't even make a lot of sense or isn't something you would regularly consider about that item. FOr instance, one aol was 'firetruck.' WHat stuck out about it? --That it was boxy and squarish. No, I didn't think any of the usual things, but that is just fine cuz the target was boxy and squarish. It seems the weird answers tend to be the good ones, LOL! That's why I don't strain myself trying to get perceptions to seem to make sense during the session. Later in the session, I sometimes have trouble breaking down the aols. They start to seem more complete and less flimsy (hard to explain). This is when, if all is going well, that the aols start to become better and better representations of the actual target. Some people say at this point the 'apperture' is opening wider or whatever. Anyway, at this stage, I sometimes don't know what to break out of the aol as it seems kind of whole and complete and so I sometimes don't break anything out. I just write something like 'reminds me of the galaxy for some reason.' But still I have the habit of automatically checking for the breakdown descriptors even if I don't get an answer at times. Then later in the session, I don't know if this happens for others, but I tend to get vague relationship scenarios like, 'There is this piece that fits into a hole that is molded to be a certain shape and the way the piece fits in there is impt because it has to be a certain shape and size. AOL=kid putting pegs in a toy (or TDS way=like a kid putting pegs in a toy). That's the point in the session where I can get some nice accurate stuff when I'm on a roll. But I have to be careful to stay descriptive and not fall into aol drive too much. -E pjrv : Messages : 1874-1978 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1874?)
23:32:31
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1874

From: "Rocheleh" Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 9:53 am Subject: Re: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter rochelehhakt... Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > David Humphries wrote: > It looks like PJ finally has a formidable > opponent - but can you type as > fast as she can? :-) ROTFL!! Well, I can type fairly fast - though I don't know how fast she types, so I can't really compare - but I don't have Internet access all the time, so PJ's the definite winner. At least for the time being. Dread the day when I get my mailer 24/7 -- mwahaha! > Eva wrote: >---LOL, I think you may be overestimating > the rest of us! If the stuff is even vaguely > legible, you may beat half the viewers in town! But hey, when I *type* something, legibility shouldn't be an issue... Only when I myself can't read what I wrote in-session, which does happen from time to time. >---I have never heard a rule about verbosity. I know some viewers >often wish they could get more data then they do so I wouldn't worry >too much if you get a lot of stuff. But for the analyst... I'm worried about the poor fellow who gets to interpret my results. Right now it's me most of the time, and I'm not worried about myself, but from the next one on, I'm planning on doing Farview targets... A reason for posting that session was so that I could ask for how I should submit feedback, compared to that one. Sure, I can type up that much stuff, it's not a problem for *me* - but someone on the other end of the line will have a hard time fitting all that into brackets. >Of course, a concise summary is >at times nice, but there's nothing wrong with getting a lot of data. >OFten if you don't get sucked too far into aol/castle building land, >then the data will get better and better the longer you go. ...I'm trying not to... This time the final sketch served as a summary - when I do all-CRV sessions, I have a written summary. But since TDS method as described till what is on Aurora Bomb doesn't have a written summary, and this sketch should be the composite of previous sketches, I figured it was redundant to write a summary when I've already drawn something like that. But in the end, I was forced to describe my drawing... Looks like I'll have to RI someone to buy me a decent scanner ;) So er, what I wanted to ask before my verbosity module kicked in was, is it OK if I send in something this huge, or should I only send the final sketch/summary. >---Ideos are unique to the person anyway so I am not sure how much >others would gain from seeing them, other than just to see how unique >ideos can look in the first place. I just thought that would look nice, I could make a HTML page of the session and it'd look so neat, with sketches and squiggles and all, a real *complete* session, but then I dropped the idea... It's not just having no scanner, it's the laziness that appears to be fundamental in my personality -sigh- I don't gain much from Ids either, I only conclude all the time how weird mine are compared to those. Probably everyone else feels the same way too, LOL! >---Well it looks like you were coming in on the basic shape of the >thing and on some of the aspects of it, especially in scan 1. I was rather carried away in the rest, but compared to my sketch of scan 3 (it looks hilarious IRL, clowns and all), I think I was fortunate to be able to turn back to scan 1 somewhat in the summary drawing and throw out what was falsely interpreted physicals. Except that huge teddy bear, LOL! I still don't know why one has to draw *exactly* what one described, but maybe Pru'll fill me in on that. > I >wonder if the fluffy clouds had to do with the 'heaven' aspect. Could be. IIRC, there's one screen in Dizzy whose name has to do with fluffy clouds. (And it came in English.) So I guess it is 1. sky (clouds imply one, at least to me) 2. a fuzzy sense of warmth (not _literal_ warmth, this is for lack of a better word), which I'd think relates to the eternal-ness of the target. It comes from the feelings associated with Dizzy - I guess that's more or less certain since it's unusual for a whole English phrase to pop up, and it was next to Dizzy himself appearing. Funny association: when I was a little child and I felt all alone (this happened a lot back then... I had very few friends up till grades 5, 6 or so of primary school), I'd often look up the sky and hope the Care Bears would come for me. I knew they weren't real, but maybe if I wished for it so much I could make it real, or so I thought. I couldn't BTW... If that teddy bear is an aspect of the Divine, I think I'll go bang my head into the table, LOL! ... I >also wonder if there was grass lower down the steps out of sight. >YOu could probably do a net search on the monument and find a pic >that covered a bit more of the surroundings. Oy vaavoy! I search for everything on the net. When someone tells me s/he can't find information on X or Y, I tell them with a sort of "you should already know how to get information" dismay to go and punch it into Google. And who forgets to do this - me. Argh! I should be ashamed of myself for being so mean to others at times -sigh- Probably because I was unconsciously afraid what would turn up might let me know my session was even less correct than I thought it was. Either way, thanks for reminding me! ROTFL! *This* came up at first on Google. http://www.joyfulnoise.net/JoyChina56.html China Jewish Heritage Tours - of all things! Apparently there's no grass, but this looks at least like something green, repeating itself and being bumpy (it's not natural though): http://www.joyfulnoise.net/Images/ChinaTour2.Pic7.jpg "Detail of tiles on the walls surrounding Temple of Heaven." Rachel Reply | Forward

#1879

From: "Eva " Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:57 pm Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > "Rocheleh" wrote: > I'm worried about the poor fellow who gets to interpret my results. ----It's the analysts job to look at the WHOLE session. Now if you are giving data to a customer or someone like that, then it might be a good time to only give a summary cuz the session would probably just confuse them. So I would say the best bet for FARVIEW is to absolutely send the whole session plus a summary. The summary can help tell the analyst what you think was most impt. I am not that good at summaries myself but I think with practice, one can eventaully get to the point where the summary is more accurate than the rest of the session. > This time the final sketch served as a summary - > when I do all-CRV sessions, I have a written summary. > But since TDS method as described till what is on > Aurora Bomb doesn't have a written summary, ----TDS does use summaries so I don't think it would hurt to do one if you wanted too. Their summary protocol is not really strict. I put in whatever I think at the time, sometimes that means I put a lot of physicals I suspect are at the target and sometimes I also talk a bit about stuff that I felt or was confused by in the session, like maybe I suspected one part of the session was symbolic of an idea and not physical. ----In one recent session, I did a scan and was writing stuff like move/freeze, etc. Suddenly I just 'knew' that it was all symbolic of an idea. It wasn't a conscious left brain deduction either. It was an inner knowing type of thing. It was sooo cool, like hey dumbo, it's an idea I'm trying to express to you here! There is no frozen person here! It later turned out the target was a water shutoff area. So I think the idea was supposed to be 'valve' or something like that. But what was so cool is just that the qualifier info came to me in the session. FOr once, I wasn't quite so clueless. I knew that bit of info was symbolic and because I knew it, the symbolic could be useful instead of just confusing. > So er, what I wanted to ask before my verbosity > module kicked in was, is it OK if I send in something > this huge, or should I only send the final sketch/summary. ----Yeah, feel free to send the whole thing or a lot of it. I would probably combine the notes together though. I am not sure anyone cares if they are crv notes or TDS notes unless you are turning it in to one or the other instructors and in this case you would not be. BTW, TDS has a similar thing to CRV in which it is advised that you try to break down the nouns or aols into simpler descriptive ideas. I noticed you listed that as CRV notes, but they could be TDS notes as well. > I was rather carried away in the rest, but > compared to my sketch of scan 3 (it looks > hilarious IRL, clowns and all), I think I was > fortunate to be able to turn back to scan 1 > somewhat in the summary drawing and throw out > what was falsely interpreted physicals. Except > that huge teddy bear, LOL! ----I wonder if the teddy bear was trying to tell you the fat roundess of the target. Sometimes it can be kinda obvious afterwards but totally slip by you in the session. ONce you can catch it in the session and get it written down, it becomes a lot more useful. > I still don't know why one has to draw *exactly* what one > described, but maybe Pru'll fill me in on that. ----Not sure on that. I guess it depends on the viewer. I am not a big sketchaholic so often I don't see anything in my head right away. After a bit, I kinda see something, then I sketch it at the end of the scan. I don't know for sure if it's the same thing I described or not, but I hope it is! In the end, I have to sketch what I see. I am not going to try to draw it if I don't see it as psi data to start with, although I do try to work to make each scan cohesive. I think that is the main goal, at least in my opinion. But you can't write or draw something if it doesn't feel right, at least IMO. > 1. sky (clouds imply one, at least to me) > 2. a fuzzy sense of warmth (not _literal_ warmth, > this is for lack of a better word), which I'd think > relates to the eternal-ness of the target. It > comes from the feelings associated with Dizzy - > I guess that's more or less certain since it's > unusual for a whole English phrase to pop up, and > it was next to Dizzy himself appearing. ----That's the kind of thing that Pru might like to see in TDS notes, ie that it was weird that it came in English. It's good to notice stuff like that. Sometimes you may notice a pattern that can help you interpret stuff more accurately in future sessions. > If that teddy bear is an aspect of the Divine, I > think I'll go bang my head into the table, LOL! ----Remember you will probably see your own personal symbols show up in the session, not other people's symbols. You were hoping for something kind in the sky to help you. SOunds a lot like praying to me, just your own version. You might notice that childhood symbols will show up fairly often too. I think that's why in the TDS system, if you get something like a Carebear as an aol in the session, they suggest you kinda ask yourself, what does XYZ (in this case a Carebear) mean to me? What aspects of it come to my mind? Warm, fuzzy, hope, rounded? That's what they mean by breaking down the aols. CRV has a similar type of thing with the emphasis on descriptive terms vs aols. Especially in the early parts of the session, descriptive stuff is often more accurate than aols. > ----Believe me, that little bit of weirdness is not going to turn many heads compared with a lot of the stuff that you see in sessions. SOmetimes I choose not to share one or two of the tidbits, LOL! One thing about session data, it often tells the brutal truth so don't count on any political correctness from your subconcious. > Probably because I was unconsciously afraid what > would turn up might let me know my session was even > less correct than I thought it was. > Either way, thanks for reminding me! ----The truth is good for you either way! But if there is grass 5 miles away, I don't think that counts, LOL! (didn't want anyone to accuse me of trying to make data fit eh!) > http://www.joyfulnoise.net/JoyChina56.html > Apparently there's no grass, but this looks at > least like something green, repeating itself and > being bumpy (it's not natural though): ----Hm, that might be another instance of if you had broken down the aol of grass into descriptives, you may have gotten more accurate stuff. For a long time, I couldn't trust my grass aols. It would often be other flat green things. One time there was grass at the target and I got tennis court as the aol (flat and green). But I think finally I am getting to the point where grass actually means grass for a change. Yeah! It pays to pay attention to that stuff so you keep track of how much breakign down of aols you need to do to get it right. OF course, it tends to be dynamic and change up on you from time to time so the process never ends! -E Reply | Forward

#1890

From: greenmn900... Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 8:43 am Subject: Re: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter greenmn900... Send Email Send Email E, I think it was Ingo, Puthoff, Targ, etc. who first began using the term "aol" and realized that anything that seemed more like an assumption or a conclusion was more likely to be wrong that purely descriptive information. They weren't the first to realize this, however. I have a book by C.W. Ledbetter about scrying, clairvoyance, telepathy, etc that was first published in the 1960s that talks about this. One of his recurring pieces of advice is to try to refrain from reaching conclusions and making judgements based on your psi perceptions. I agree with you that different methods are just different approaches to doing the same thing. Actually, I think this process of breaking down aols into their component perceptions is what all Rvers learn to do almost as a reflex eventually. Best Regards, Don Reply | Forward

#1897

From: "Eva " Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 5:27 pm Subject: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Don wrote: > first began using the term "aol" > and realized that anything that seemed > more like an assumption or a > conclusion was more likely to be wrong > than purely descriptive information. Well but you see there is a huge diff there. More likely to be wrong is not the same thing as being wrong. Sometimes the aols are spot on and sometimes they are not exactly right, but carrying some descriptive info that is right. And so if you break down the aol into descriptives, then you are more likely to have good stuff. Because if the aol was right to start with, then it's descriptives will also be right, and if the aol was just a carrier, you are more likely to drag out the correct descriptives. So again I say, aol does not equal something being wrong, it's purpose is to cause you to notice that it is not a descriptive thing but a higher level thing that may or may not be correct. So stay neutral and do NOT pass judgement on it in the session. Save your judgement for the summary, hehe. > They weren't the first to realize this, > however. I have a book by C.W. > Ledbetter about scrying, clairvoyance, > telepathy, etc that was first > published in the 1960s that talks about > this. One of his recurring pieces of > advice is to try to refrain from reaching > conclusions and making judgements > based on your psi perceptions. Yup, I think that a lot of people in the past have noticed the phenomenon. It's just that rv made it into a more specific rule of behavior instead of informal advice. > I agree with you that different methods are > just different approaches to > doing the same thing. Actually, I think this > process of breaking down aols > into their component perceptions is what all > Rvers learn to do almost as a > reflex eventually. I don't know if all aspects of all methods follow that rule, but for the large part at least, I think you are right. People are trying to accomplish similar things, but with a diff spin or a diff technique. For instance, I think a lot of the methods have goals like: -Focus on descriptors -Do not concern yourself with worrying about success or failure (during the session that is, later on, you can worry all you like!) -Practice often -Think about what you did in the session and learn from it instead of just blasting on to the next session -Keep an element of fun and relaxation in it as much as possible (obviously difficult with some types of targets) -Work on techniques to get more and more and diff types of data -Have techniques to keep you on track in case you are getting side tracked by aol drive/castle building/assumptions/imagination -Practice a lot with verifiable targets with good feedback -Keep variety and interest in the practice material -Be well versed and capable of working double blind -Get useful data (obviously) -Stay grounded about your results -Etc, I'm sure there's more that I forgot Anyway, I bet most people doing most methods will agree that all those things are a good idea, even they approach is from slightly diff angles. -E Reply | Forward

#1978

From: "PJ Gaenir " Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 10:15 am Subject: Breaking out AOLs dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email > don wrote > I think this process of breaking down aols > into their component perceptions is what all > Rvers learn to do almost as a reflex eventually. Yeah, the joy of feedback (ha) is that the need for such things becomes retrospectively obvious. After several sessions anybody doing RV sees this sort of thing and begins attempting to work that way -- it takes work and is often missed even by experts for various reasons. 'Training' can give a headsup about the existence of such a need -- to recognize and break out AOLs. Unfortunately, no matter how much training you get first, everybody has to learn that lesson the hard way. :-) PJ Reply | Forward

#1912

From: greenmn900... Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 11:26 am Subject: Re: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter greenmn900... Send Email Send Email E, > You wrote: > "Well but you see there is a huge diff there. > More likely to be wrong is not the same thing as being wrong." I agree. > You wrote: > "So again I say, aol does not equal something > being wrong, it's purpose is to cause you to > notice that it is not a descriptive thing but a > higher level thing that may or may not be correct. > So stay neutral and do NOT pass judgement on it > in the session. Save your judgement for the > summary, hehe." I agree with this too, but I want to point out that an aol itself is a kind of judgement. It's an assumption, a conclusion reached from the available information, which is the RV data you've gathered up to that point. The reason early-session aols tend to be more off-the-mark than later-session aols is probably because of this. Later in the session, the assumptions and conclusions are based upon more information and so, have a greater tendency to be more on-the-mark. That's the "assumption" I'm making, anyway. :-) > You wrote: > "For instance, I think a lot of the methods have goals like:......" That was a great list, E.! Every item you mentioned is something I've had to pay special attention to at one point or another. I'm sure there's lots more, but that was a good general run-down of a lot of the internal approaches that facilitate successful RV. I'd like to see that list expanded and every one add what they think is important. It could be very educational and useful for all of us! Best Regards, Don Reply | Forward

#1919

From: greenmn900... Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 1:21 pm Subject: Re: Re: Session on Fuzzy Peanut Butter greenmn900... Send Email Send Email E, > You Wrote: > "Then later in the session, I don't know if > this happens for others, but I tend to get vague > relationship scenarios like, 'There is this piece > that fits into a hole that is molded to be a > certain shape and the way the piece fits in there > is impt because it has to be a certain shape and > size. AOL=kid putting pegs in a toy (or TDS way=like > a kid putting pegs in a toy). That's the point in the > session where I can get some nice accurate stuff > when I'm on a roll. But I have to be careful to > stay descriptive and not fall into aol drive too much." It sounds like you're getting "context" and interrelationships between various aspects of the target. That's great. I think this is the kind of information that becomes very important in applications. This is the kind of stuff that allows an RV to "fill in the holes" about an event where only part of it is understood. A criminal investigation is a good example where this kind of data can be important. Best Regards, Don

// end archive

Top of Page

Remote Viewing info page spacer

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives


Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info