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 : 1152-1280 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1152?)
23:01:31
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1152

From: "PJ Gaenir" Date: Thu Nov 7, 2002 5:27 pm Subject: Solar Wind and Greg's ARV dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Hi Greg, Well just as I thought I had read every of the zillion pages on your website, I see I must have been at a different website (?!) because remote-viewing.com had lots stuff I hadn't seen before. Cool pics! Not as much fun as you on your nifty bike though. :-) On one of your solar wind papers, http://www.remote-viewing.com/ARVupdateOct99.html Your first graph charts ARV effect size against SW speed. You didn't mention it anywhere but I just wondered, did you not find it interesting that the effect seemed to pick UP around a certain high speed? Too bad there weren't more days with the real high speeds -- well there were just recently I guess... -- I'm curious as to whether a larger span to measure might actually show it picking up again. If Spottiswoode had measured only a certain portion of LST for example it might have ended up looking like 'the later the LST the worse results' when of course that wasn't the case. Maybe SWS will end up having merely a certain 'range' that is very poor vs. just 'the higher the number, the worse the effect'. I wonder if SWS has any different effect size response depending on where one is on the planet. Well maybe that relates to what you suggested about LST maybe being a 'secondary' issue (I recall James saying that also). What I can't figure out is if these things do have effect, why does RV testing inside faraday cages and so forth seem to have no effect? Hmmmmn. PJ Reply | Forward

#1159

From: "Scott Ellis" Date: Thu Nov 7, 2002 6:51 pm Subject: Re: Solar Wind and Greg's ARV scottrver Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi PJ, > If Spottiswoode had measured only a certain portion of LST for example > it might have ended up looking like 'the later the LST the worse > results' when of course that wasn't the case. Maybe SWS will end up > having merely a certain 'range' that is very poor vs. just 'the > higher the number, the worse the effect'. I'm not sure if I get what you're talking about. Spottiswoode's paper on GMF (which is a product of SWS) shows that there are LST times where it is positively correlated with effect size and only around 13:00 (if I remember correctly) where it is negatively correlated. Remember too, that the actual magnetic field changes are minute. > What I can't figure out is if these things do have effect, why does > RV testing inside faraday cages and so forth seem to have no effect? > Hmmmmn. Do you know something I don't? This is an experiment I've been considering doing and have discussed at some length with Tart and Spottiswoode. The only RV testing I'm aware of shows that RV can occur inside Faraday cages. Charles Tart's experiment on Faraday shielding showed significantly positive psi results (forced choice) for a grounded cage vs. total absence of psi for an electrically floating cage. His was a vastly improved replication of Puharich's experiments in the 1950s with the same results. To my knowledge there have been no replications using RV, but I don't want to replicate it with RV if someone else already has. Scott Reply | Forward

#1176

From: "Scott Ellis" Date: Fri Nov 8, 2002 1:26 pm Subject: One mistake - Re: Solar Wind and Greg's ARV scottrver Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 In reviewing James's paper I made one mistake > Spottiswoode's paper > on GMF (which is a product of SWS) shows that there are LST times > where it is positively correlated with effect size WRONG - the amount of positive correlation does not appear that significant. > and only around > 13:00 (if I remember correctly) where it is negatively correlated. > Remember too, that the actual magnetic field changes are minute. CORRECT. Scott Reply | Forward

#1166

From: "Greg Kolodziejzyk" Date: Thu Nov 7, 2002 9:46 pm Subject: RE: Solar Wind and Greg's ARV gregkolodzie... Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Heya PJ: Good points re Solar Wind and the INCREASE in ES at around 600 km per second. I have looked extensively for a confirmation of that effect aside from *some* in subsequent ARV trials of my own. I even went as far as to plot the correlation of thousands of retroPK trials from fourmilab. The short answer is - ya - it looks like there 'might' be something there, but the effect was so weak in the pk data that I wasn't able to say for certain (statistically) - mostly because I had to take some liberties with regard to estimating certain variables in the data (forget exactly what it was...). But I do believe it is something real. How it works is: Low solar wind speeds = high psi effect size and speeds between 600 and 700 (I think - don't have my most recent data right here) = high effect size. It's a tough one to gather enough data on because the days with really high solar activity are are and becoming rarer with on 'this' side of the big cycle (which is good because as the months and years pass, we will get more and more LOW solar wind speed days). As far as the faraday cage question goes - The ACTUAL solar wind or Geomagnetic activity that is effected by solar wind CANNOT possibly have any direct effect at all on remote viewing. The reason is that plenty of testing in sheltered environments (caves, faraday cages, submarines) have failed to result in an increase in effect. It's something else that we can't directly measure that fluctuates along with solar activity. I believe solar wind, or sun spots, or the AP index is merely a proxy for what's really the causal factor - something mysterious! I believe that Spottiswoode did some faraday cage testing and contrary to what he thought he would find, he actually found NO effect when the subject was completely sheltered and a high effect when the subject was being bombarded with various EM frequencies. Regards, Greg K
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------- Moderator's note: Thanks Greg. Scott I think that answers the questions you posed me in another post. -- PJ Reply | Forward

#1179

From: greenmn900... Date: Fri Nov 8, 2002 9:43 am Subject: Re: Solar Wind and Greg's ARV greenmn900... Send Email Send Email > Bill writes: > If so the 13:30 effect of LST may be to > DECREASE displacement rather than to > decrease total RV sensitivity. Bill, I think you mean "rather than to increase total RV sensitivity". This is a very interesting idea. I hadn't thought of that one. It could be, especially if you're thinking along the lines of PJs theory, that displacement is a lot bigger problem than I had previously considered it to be. At the very least, if true, it makes me feel better about missed targets. I'd rather be a guilty of displacement rather than just being flat out wrong! I recently had a funny displacement problem. I described something like an enclosed large ship, on land, in a very cold environment, not in the U.S. - I missed my target completely. After looking at the feedback photo, I put it away and picked up Joe's new book "The Stargate Chronicles". I started reading about where I had left off. He was describing his RVing of the first Soviet Typhoon-class sub! I had Rved what I was about to read and missed the target totally! Best Regards, Don Reply | Forward

#1188

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Fri Nov 8, 2002 6:52 pm Subject: Re: Guessing Card color docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi All, Ever since I witnessed Rob Abbotts stunning success with guessing card color (94% correct)..I've been experimenting with that every night. And using it as a proxy to determine what causes my psi to increase/decrease . It's nice to have instant feedbackand many things become apparent. 1) I find that I have to find a way to fool my concious mind or distract it away or it will give me the wrong target most of the time..if I'm on the psi line..and random targets if I'm not on the psi line. 2)Whatever trick I use.. hemisynch..different ways of dowsing..or seeing the card in my mind..will only work until my conciousness figures what I'm doing and gets involved. Changing your methods or rotating them seems to keep the concious mind confused and increases success alot. I think inate success of a psychic is how well they can keep a filter between there viewing mind and there concious mind. Rob can do it outstandingly well. So could Joe and Ingo in MO. But others like me must resort to tricks. And in my opinion the whole RV process is a huge trick to keep the concious mind out of play. My latest trick..hope this doesn't ruin it: I imagine a mirror and I imagine holding the card to the mirror so I can see it.. but that is just the FIRST mirror which my concious mind can see also. As soon as the image fades out from my concious mind.... at some random time I flash the card into another imaginary mirror( the mirror of Truth)..on my right or left and I keep changing. Doing that way.. I got a good string on my last trial ( 17/24) . I think this bears on displacement also. As soon as the conciousness can penetrate into the viewing process it acts very michieviously and it LEARNS how to penetrate your method. So you have to keep changing or it will get you..G Best Regards, Bill Reply | Forward

#1194

From: "Darren Danks" Date: Sat Nov 9, 2002 2:03 am Subject: RE: Guessing Card color daz_ufo Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Bill That's great, I'll have to try that. I found that when I started trying to predict the card colour that when I first had a go I did really well then subsequent tries reduced the success rate. Do you think though that the more you do the card colour predicting and keep up the success rate using whatever distractions for the conscious mind that the conscious mind will eventually accept the process and allow it to happen without the distraction techniques? Could this be a process the "pros" have gone through? I'll start spending 15-20 minutes each day on cards and document my success rate and feelings etc and see if this is the case over a period of time. Every now and again I'll post my findings up and maybe some sort of correlation may appear. Not sure what correlation yet but something may happen :-) Take care Darren ------------------------------- Moderator's note: You might bore yourself to new distractions. That may happen. LOL. But seriously, let us know how it goes. -- PJ Reply | Forward

#1222

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Mon Nov 11, 2002 1:30 am Subject: RE: Guessing Card color docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Darren, >.... Do > you think though > that the more you do the card colour predicting and > keep up the success > rate using whatever distractions for the conscious > mind that the > conscious mind will eventually accept the process > and allow it to happen > without the distraction techniques? Hi Darren...actually my experience is the opposite so far..the concious mind just interferes more and more. Unless a break is taken. HOWEVER, I seem to be having a longer run of success than ever before with the mirror trick because I just don't allow time for the concious mind. I hope I don't have to change it.. Again..I have 4 imaginary mirrors. In my mind I hold the card to mirror (1)( note I actually hold up the card to my imaginary mirror with my eyes closed) and usually I see the last card chosen as an imaginary reflection.. so obviously just an after image.. but I focus tightly on that image.. and when the after image fades..WITHOUT ANITCIPATION. I flash the card to imaginary mirror two and then to either 3 or 4 ( I make the decision between 3 or 4 without concious thought at the last possible splt second after I bounce off mirror (2).. I take my REAL reading.from either 3 or 4. This continues to work so far but I have to do all the hand movement in less than 0.5 Seconds including gettting the finally image from mirror 3 or 4!..after that it frequently drifts to the wrong one. I think the Pro's like Rob Abbott and Ingo and Lyn and Joe just have a better filter between concious and subconcious mind.. I do find that binaural beat music helps me a better window with all this because it seems to dull the concious mind. Best Regards, Bill Reply | Forward

#1198

From: Karl Boyken Date: Sat Nov 9, 2002 11:20 am Subject: Re: Guessing Card color kboyken Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 This guessing card color thread reminded me of a guy I used to know, about 25 years ago, who could do this. He'd have a person go through a deck, looking at each card while he tried to sense its color. He was sensing the other person's perception of the card, because when I ran the deck with him, at first he was getting them all wrong. He said it was because red and black have a different feel for me than for most other people. I can't remember which was which now, but he said one usually felt warm and soft, the other hard and cool. So we ran the deck again, and this time he got almost all of them right. -- Karl Boyken mailto:kboyken...t http://soli.inav.net/~kboyken Reply | Forward

#1203

From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m Date: Sat Nov 9, 2002 4:31 pm Subject: Re: Guessing Card color maliolana Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Aloha Bill, I feel a similar way about distracting my 'conscious' self or it will displace my retrieval process...What a know it all it is...It just wants to solve any problem that comes up!...and tell me lots of stories...Sheee....... Funny thing though...it is my conscious self ...that actually makes up the new trick to distract itself...now that is a feedback loop ...if I ever heard of one...in one relative ear ... and out the other and back... Maybe it isn't the conscious self that tries to interfere...become a player ... or trickster...perhaps it is one or several of the subconscious selves...These many selves are the ones...I try to entertain/distract...so the psi selves/portal can function more clearly...give more pertinent data... Man its like raising a small child...or several of them......whether conscious/unconscious/ subconscious...Tactics must be somewhat fluid...I guess...No getting stuck in dogma for me...at least not for long...Reality is changing to fast for that nowadays... Love & Light & Laughter Mali'o...aka...Dawna Reply | Forward

#1211

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:32 am Subject: Re: Guessing Card color docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Dawna, I understand... what you say..but the concious self is relatively slow witted compared to the subself ( any of them..G). You can make up a trick.. and the concious self won't track it for a few trials. then it will memorize the gestalt and cause trouble. I'm sure lowering brain waves slows the concious self even more, but eventually it breaks thru. Bill* Reply | Forward

#1213

From: "PJ Gaenir" Date: Sun Nov 10, 2002 10:01 pm Subject: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Hi Bill, Well maybe the question we should be asking is, why does the subconscious sabotage remote viewing efforts after awhile? The answer seems to be (a) fear, and (b) contradicting inner belief systems. So then wouldn't the question become, how do we work with our mind to proactively deal with the fear and changing the belief systems, so that such hindrances to ongoing or consistent skill are at least minimized? That brings us back to my 'experiential and developmental' focus, where meditations and psychology and all the parts of one's life become part of the process of 'growth' -- growing those belief systems out is as much a part of that as anything. Does this not tie into what McMoneagle has been saying all along -- that good and consistent RV is not about the session process, but rather, about learning to understand how your own mind works, after which much of the session process ends up taking care of itself? So just theoretically here, doing something over and over constantly torquing the process so that it will be "new" -- to "fake out the subconscious" for a short period of time that might allow success before a decline effect -- what would be the point of that? Isn't that just avoiding the issue of the deeper psychological / shamanic work called for? It seems like a form of denial, "surface" behavior that avoids the deeper, more damnibly intangible yet profoundly changing self exploration that could be approached as the alternative. Sorta like someone who will date a new person each month rather than actually commit to the compromise relationships require. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about any and all of us studying the subject. It manifests in a lot of ways. Maybe the subconscious -- I don't really believe in a SC but it's a useful model for conversation :-) -- has its own "aspect personality". Maybe it is rightfully offended if we want it to step up, hop to it, do this for me -- yet we refuse to associate with it. Like it's the parlor slave, to whom we are friendly when we want something but ignore in every other context outside that. PJ Reply | Forward

#1217

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Mon Nov 11, 2002 2:03 am Subject: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi PJ, Perhaps and actually that was my model until the last time I talked to Rob A. and asked him, he told me it wasn't really that complicated..it was just the concious mind getting involved and trying to superimpose logic and memory and imagination onto intuition. Not even maliciously..just sort of cluelessly. Anyway...I'm treating it that way for awhile.. and also I don't really know how or what deep psychologic changes to maek to increase psi consistently..so I'll stick with "tricks" for now..IMHO CRV is such a trick. (oh shouldn't have said that should I) Bill* > Maybe the subconscious -- I don't really believe in > a SC but it's a > useful model for conversation :-) -- has its own > "aspect > personality". Maybe it is rightfully offended if we > want it to step > up, hop to it, do this for me -- yet we refuse to > associate with it. > Like it's the parlor slave, to whom we are friendly > when we want > something but ignore in every other context outside > that. Reply | Forward

#1223

From: "Eva" Date: Mon Nov 11, 2002 7:33 am Subject: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > So just theoretically here, doing something over and over constantly > torquing the process so that it will be "new" -- to "fake out the > subconscious" for a short period of time that might allow success > before a decline effect -- what would be the point of that? Isn't > that just avoiding the issue of the deeper psychological / shamanic > work called for? I don't know if there is a point. I also don't know if it will hurt you to play around with it either. As it is, every session has some variation. Some sessions just seem to go differently than others. Either way, it's still about looking at and interpreting what's in your head. > It seems like a form of denial, "surface" behavior that avoids the > deeper, more damnibly intangible yet profoundly changing self > exploration that could be approached as the alternative. I think the whole rv process is a mental heuristic to help us obtain some info we want. It may well be that the most effective mental heuristic for one person varies from that of another person. At the beginning level, I would say that stuff that can get you to get good results is a good thing because it shows you that you can really do it. It allows you to really grok that you personally can do this thing. It's not luck, it's you. Of course, at some point, the dependence on newness will have to fade, but I think that will happen anyway as there are only so many ways to change it up in the first place. If you do a zillion sessions, you are going to start finding things that you like to do and you will start doing them. I don't think there is any way to avoid that. > Maybe the subconscious -- I don't really believe in a SC but it's a > useful model for conversation :-) -- has its own "aspect > personality". Maybe it is rightfully offended if we want it to step > up, hop to it, do this for me -- yet we refuse to associate with it. > Like it's the parlor slave, to whom we are friendly when we want > something but ignore in every other context outside that. I don't think there is an option there either. Once you start dealing more with the subconscious, then it will start dealing more with you. It will become harder and harder to compartmentalize it. If you can't deal with the sub piping up more often, then IMO, you are on the path to destabilization and should slow down and work on that aspect of self instead. Too much energy into an unstable system makes for a REALLY unstable system and trouble waiting to happen. -E Reply | Forward

#1236

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Tue Nov 12, 2002 1:01 pm Subject: Re: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Dear Rich and EVe How can anyone that does RV not believe in a subconcious or many levels of it?.. I'm not even going to argue the point. But just a couple of examples..forget RV a minute.. If your mouth waters when looking at something you really want to eat.. Did you conciously make your mouth water..?.Do you conciously blink? . Were you ever hypnotized? Ever watch anyone you trust be hynotized.. Ever dream something that was clearly programed ? Ever become attracted to someone without knowing why or even conciously wanting too. Ever be afraid of ( or attracted to) things that make no concious sense. like mice or spiders or darkenss or heights or people that look certain ways?. Did you ever zone out and automatically drive somewhere without thinking..? Well then where do all these programs come from.. ? They were all subconcious programming that became concious only when triggered. Bill Reply | Forward

#1239

From: "PJ Gaenir" Date: Tue Nov 12, 2002 1:43 pm Subject: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email > --- Bill Pendragon wrote: > How can anyone that does RV not believe in a > subconcious or many levels of it? LOL. It's a matter of semantics, but semantics are important because words define our belief constructs. I think it was me that said I didn't believe in the SC but it was a good model for conversation. I did not say that I believe we are "consciously aware of" every micron of content that might be part of our overall being at any given minute, of course. That would be silly. If one wants to call "everything of which I am not consciously aware of at this moment" the "subconscious", then that makes sense and that works for me. But the SC in that case would change constantly. Minute to minute. As would the conscious mind. It would less "one thing here" and "one thing there" as a single pool of fluctuating thing, with an arbitrary dotted line superimposed at some point, but what is within either "part" would be constantly interacting and changing. The common usage of the word is to delineate a part of the mind that is "separated" and, in cultural usage of the term, assumed to be difficult to reach, mischevious, even frightening. I think of consciousness kind of like a big pot of stew. At any given time, a certain portion of it is on the top - is visible. With a little stir you can totally change much of what is on the top and visible, though the 'lighter' parts in it will usually float on or somewhat near the surface except during very brief shakeups, and since it's all mixed up, to the naked eye, the two totally different surfaces will look pretty similar to a casual onlooker. The surface is like our 'surface personality' -- our conscious mind at any given time. I don't think of it as separated from everything- else-which-is-us, but rather, 'the combination of aspects of us which happen to be riding on the surface at any given moment'. We change moment to moment often but most around us don't really notice. The primary reason I try and force the semantics issue in my own head in areas like these, is to get past the limiting ideas about the subconscious and the assumed difficulty or exotic nature of "access" to "its" contents. It is all us. We are one. We have direct access to what's not at any given moment conscious, as much as we do to what's in our conscious mind. It's just a matter of believing that apparently. So any "separatist definitions" that I allow my mind to hold on the process and the nature of this, work against my attempt to "integrate" myself into the concept of ONE being, not "a mind divided". Now per your comments: that much of our daily lives, some for more than others lol, is almost on "auto-pilot", semi-programmed amoebic- responses etc., does not prove that the mind is innately created in two separate pieces, it merely demonstrates that most people have not made much attempt to become aware of more than what it takes to get through the average day. That unique combination of 'what it takes' for each individual is what's floating on top for them... is what defines their conscious mind. People in tough situations often have vastly larger, richer, deeper, more aware "conscious minds" -- if we are including everything that is conscious meaning noticed and/or controlled -- it isn't that they are tuning into their subconscious so to speak, it's that the portion of the "one thing" that is their mind which they pay attention to is more expanded. Some of the things you noted like blinking, salivating, etc., are close to being autonomic responses. We can pull this aspect of us into our conscious awareness too. There just isn't generally any reason to do so, and a lifetime of training tells the mind to ignore such trivia like when we need to blink and get on with the business of running from the tiger. So sure, the majority of us "remains below our conscious awareness" and hence is legitimately called "subconscious". But the western usage of this word is almost always implying "two" minds -- the conscious and subconscious -- with the limen in between that we have to "break through" in hypnosis for example -- the two minds can talk to each other but in most cases act like they're at odds. I notice the more I focus on being one complete entity, with a constantly flowingness through me of everything, being interested in and willing to experience many parts of me that are not just the 'daily whats-on-top', the more other aspects of me seem to come into the stream of my 'conscious' mind. The subconscious is defined in the negative -- whatever we don't bother to include in our awareness at any given moment, is subconscious. That's not a specific, given "thing", a separated mind behind a wall we need to break through. That's just an arbitrary pool of "what we're leaving out of ourselves for the moment" because it's too much trouble to pay attention to. :-) IMO. My beliefs subject to change at the drop of a hat usually. PJ Reply | Forward

#1243

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Tue Nov 12, 2002 10:35 pm Subject: Re: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 I can answer yes to several of those questions but I wonder how or why the SC is tied into RV and more specifically I wonder about all o fthe talk about training either yourself or your SC to co-operate for the purpose of getting good RV data. The RCV world seems to have adopted the SC as some kind of assistant or fall guy or whatever and uses it to create RV theory. I just do not see any basis for it. And, yes, the most common reference to the SC in RV is that it is basically "ornery". :) What other fields of psi base their work on the SC? Cayce? Edwards? Card Readers? Channelers? Dowsers? > Bill Pendragon wrote: > If your mouth waters when looking at something you > really want to eat.. Did you conciously make your > mouth water..?.Do you conciously blink? [snip] Reply | Forward

#1246

From: "PJ Gaenir" Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 9:38 am Subject: Re: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email > On 12 Nov 2002 at 23:35, Richard Krankoski wrote: What other > fields of psi base their work on the SC? Cayce? Edwards? Card > Readers? Channelers? Dowsers? Well my experience with others who did various forms of divination, is that initially most people start out thinking it's the universe, or TK, or some cosmic power arranging the cards or ouijia thing or dowsing or whatever. Then later they get to the idea that if they are contacting someone else (whether channeling or ouija or dowsing a person's info) that the something- else-is-coming-through energetically and causing the effect. Later they get to the idea that it's their own subconscious -- they finally recognize their role in all of it -- but the idea is that their SC is "talking to" someone else's SC. That's still a very linear, electronic sort of model. We talk to 'some other separate part of ourself' which then talks to 'some other separate part of someone else' and reports the data back to our SC which then reports the data back to us. Even psi is a bureaucracy for some people! LOL! Usually once someone is decently advanced, at least the few I've met, by that point they think everything is just everything. That the "division" in our universe between you, me and my cat and your car is mostly a matter of what one is paying attention to, and we have the ability to "pay attention to" even the experience of "being" something or someone else if we wish, or talking with something, or letting something "have their say through you (channeling), etc. It's just a matter of what one pays attention to, what one believes (on core levels) is possible, and what one fears. As experience goes on it becomes clear that even events and places have 'identities' of a sort. Like the Zen meditations where one "becomes" say, a stone; in my philosophy, a stone is "an elemental which happens to be within our physiologically perceived frequency band"; magical "elementals" are just natural intelligence/identity-groupings that are not in our "physical" band. It makes as much sense to talk to a rock or table as talk to an elemental (something most magicians just don't grok); they are both simple-form "aware but not self-aware" consciousness. Bi-location into someone else, which I've done a lot spontaneously but only once in an RV session (and that incredibly briefly, like 1.5 seconds), is clearly possible since I've experienced it, although I admit that degree of merge does have merge-type side effects if it's a really hard core process. However that degree of merge happening deliberately in RV let alone for any period beyond a moment is pretty unlikely. I think, people who believe in the subconscious as a 'separated' part of ourself would likely believe that everything, at some point, is the SC; those who don't, would have to take the theory that nothing is "over there separate" in the SC. Like many areas of psi, we lack terminology for a lot of the subtleties. In the area of consciousness, finding even one word for something is novel. If the world were in the same situation, for example, words like snow, sleet, hail, rain, mist, fog, humidity -- would all be ONE word or term, like "wet air" or something. Discussion would be difficult because people using the same words might have entirely different concepts. Not only for what it means, but for how "it" is interpreted as well. And of course, words are developed or utilized based on existing concepts. So practices which develop "new" concepts -- or simply cause one to recognize the limits and assumptions in the ones we already have -- leave us searching for a new model, new words. And talking too much with the ones we have, to try to make a point, without having a few simple everybody-knows-the-same-meaning words to use. ;-) PJ Reply | Forward

#1255

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 2:57 pm Subject: Re: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 All of them. Bill > --- Richard Krankoski wrote: > What other fields of psi base their work on the SC? > Cayce? Edwards? > Card Readers? Channelers? Dowsers? Reply | Forward

#1247

From: Karl Boyken Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:35 am Subject: Re: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial kboyken Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > I wonder how > or why the SC is tied into RV Rich, I don't know whether my impression is accurate, but I thought the SC model springs from parapsychological research. Don't a lot of people who've written about psi research in the 20th century use the model of psi ability being mediated by the subconscious? Karl -- Karl Boyken kboyken...t http://soli.inav.net/~kboyken/ We dance 'round in a ring and suppose, while the Secret sits in the middle and knows. --Robert Frost Reply | Forward

#1251

From: "David Humphries" Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:00 am Subject: Re: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial a_healey56 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Rich, This is right along the line of reasoning that lead to a question I posted a few months back. I don't know how psi works, but I do know that sometimes I can actually see the target clearly (not very often, though) while RVing, or have an occasional acute pre-cognitive dream. Clear audible communications in plain 20th - or now 21st - century English are involved too. I'm sure everyone has experienced both of these and more. These clear communications through different types of perceptions tells me that whatever the mechanism is that conveys them, it can communicate to us in a way that is clear and obvious to the receiver of the data. So if the mechanism by which we receive data can communicate to us clearly sometimes, why then do we get all of the symbolic bits and pieces that we do, which is almost like the subconscious is playing games with us, or in your words, it's being ornery. (That is, if the so-called subconscious is indeed the culprit). I too somehow suspect that the subconscious is not to blame. I have a couple of thoughts about this, but won't have time to address them until later today. I'm curious what others think about it. Dave > I wonder how or why the SC is tied into RV > and more specifically I wonder about all of > the talk about training either yourself or > your SC to co-operate for the purpose of > getting good RV data. The RCV world seems to > have adopted the SC as some kind of assistant > or fall guy or whatever and uses it to create > RV theory. I just do not see any basis for it. Reply | Forward

#1252

From: greenmn900... Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 7:03 am Subject: Re: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Hi All, I like the topic of this conversation. It's interesting to see how different people view this concept of the SC. As Palyne said, the idea that the subconscious is somehow separate, almost a different entity than the conscious, is probably wrong. I've always thought it kind of strange when people would describe the SC as a kind of trickster, or like a recalcitrant child which must be fooled or cajoled into doing what we want it to do. I think this is wrong and I suspect that a lot of the problems people have in RV are related to this view - of the information being stubbornly held by a part of the mind which doesn't really want to give it up to the conscious. It's a belief that adds another layer of difficulty to RV. Consciousness is all a matter of where we put our focus. Since, by neccessity, we have to put our focus on this consensus reality to experience it, we become habitually trained to ignore the vast information that is also available to us - which is literally every bit of information that ever has or will be. So, the act of refocusing (the kind of refocusing we do in RV) is difficult because we're rusty at it. Just like trying to ride a bicycle, for example, upside down and backward would be difficult and would take a lot of time and practice to achieve with any ease, operating and controlling our focus is difficult because we're so accustomed to doing it in only one way. This is just one more reason (hell, it may be the single most important reason) that continual, consistent practice is what really makes one a good RVer. Regarding bi-location "into" someone else, Palyne said: >"However that degree of merge happening > deliberately in RV let alone for any > period beyond a moment is pretty unlikely." I'd like to know why you think this is so, PJ. Why is it unlikely that it would happen deliberately and why is it unlikely that it would occur for anything more than a brief moment? Best Regards, Don -------------------------------- Moderator's note: Because although I believe everybody has some degree of psi talent, I have not yet seen any evidence that the vast majority of the population has the psychology necessary to allow that degree of (or type of) target contact. Those who do, can probably get quite extensively into it. My experience has been though that this kind of identity shift causes some profound cognitive dissonance issues, and treads on some really critical core psychological constructs about identity. These can be dealt with over time, but I think it is quite rare to find this openness operating without inhibition in most people. That is just my experience from talking with a lot of people over years. In addition to the above factors, I believe that the majority of people in the RV world have had the questionable advantage of "training", and the CRV gurus tend to either believe that such is highly improbable, or "dangerous" -- either belief tends to transfer to students in conversation and further slants the psychology of the would-be viewer against this occurring (or much). So you see my comment isn't about what is possible psychically, merely about what is probable socially, psychologically, etc. Regards. -- PJ Reply | Forward

#1256

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 3:19 pm Subject: Re: Re: Denial of SC Tricks is a trick docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Dear Deniers of SC tricks, PLEASE ! do a little Ouija ..you will soon find you are comming up with answers that follow a plot you did not conciously make up..and yet it's a real plot awith somekind of logic..but usually it's complete BS.. therefore.. one has to conclude that the SC (or whatever creates the ouija response) is capable of being foolish also. Try it and you will soon agree. Rich you are in desparate need of some serious Ouija work! Best Regards, Bill --------------------------- Moderator's note: LOL. If "we" contain "all", there is nothing in that which suggests that every possible identity in the 'All' is either truthful or valid 'in our reality'. In fact, you can talk to a wide variety of identities which may be utterly sincere and specific and "'where' that perspective experiences" it is accurate but "where our conscious selves perceive" they are not. Just because we don't "deliberately" invent something, does that mean it has no part of us -- it must be "the other" -- whether that-separate-Subconscious or Spirit? Or is it merely that we are "projecting" everything into the role of "other-ness"? -- for many people the term subconscious is nearly as separate from them as a separate "entity" would be. Is it possible that there is no such thing as "other", only of our unwillingness to recognize (or admit) ourselves in what we experience? PJ Reply | Forward

#1258

From: "Sharon Webb" Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:31 pm Subject: Re: Re: Denial of SC Tricks is a trick sharwebb_30512 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 If you stick with the Ouija long enough, you might find that it isn't complete BS. :-) Sharon sharwebb...net www.fractalus.com/sharon > From: Bill Pendragon > PLEASE ! do a little Ouija ..you will soon find you > are comming up with answers that follow a plot you did > not conciously make up..and yet it's a real plot awith > somekind of logic..but usually it's complete BS.. > therefore.. one has to conclude that the SC (or > whatever creates the ouija response) is capable of > being foolish also. Try it and you will soon agree. Reply | Forward

#1266

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 10:17 pm Subject: Re: Re: Denial of SC Tricks is a trick docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > --- Sharon Webb wrote: > If you stick with the Ouija long enough, you might > find that it isn't complete BS. :-) Hi Sharon, I very much agree. But one argument at a time is enough for me...G Best Regards, Bill ----------------------------- Moderator's note: So.... if working something seriously and ongoing can move it from being a joke to being interesting and potentially worthwhile, then is your subconscious a joker, as you're saying in posts today, or serious? Are we sure it is the subconscious that is a joker, and not the conscious self sabotaging any attempt to use intuitive information rather than logic? So... if so... then wouldn't that reverse the whole initial assumption... that it's really all about us to begin with, not some trickster other-ness called the subconscious, who's being the fall-guy for our quite conscious psychological issues? :-) Just being a sort of devil's advocate here... PJ Reply | Forward

#1259

From: greenmn900... Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 2:50 pm Subject: Re: Re: Denial of SC Tricks is a trick greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Bill, The question here is what exactly are you communicating with when you use the Ouija? Are you sure it's your subconscious? The boards are notorious for behaving exactly as you describe. Hell, if you persist in using them, sooner or later they usually get around to telling you to kill, Fluffy, your cat, and other sweet pieces of advice. They will also claim to be all kinds of people or beings and when confronted with evidence that it's a lie, they switch to another lie. I know of no other means of divination (if Ouija boards can truly be called that) that behave in this way. Not dowsing, not scrying, not anything. The only exceptions I can think of are things like channeling, mediumship, and attempts at alien communications. The reason may be that these boards were specifically devised to contact "spirits", at least according to the history that I've read. And as with channeling, etc., this always leads to ridiculous half-truths and often airy, pscho-spiritual pablum - at best. PJ, I don't believe 'we' contain "all". However, I do believe we do contain what might best be described as reflections of "all". That's ONLY my belief - and ONLY at this moment....lol. Best Regards, Don YOU are your subconscious. It's not a separate being with it's own drives and wishes. It's just the part of you that is below the liminal threshold most of the time. I don't think the SC is no more a trickster than the person it is part of. Reply | Forward

#1268

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 10:24 pm Subject: Re: Re: The Devil and the Ouiga docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Don, Well I see it as many things being linked into the subconcious including nasty entities and angels and everything in between. Personally, I never got any evil advise from a ouiga. Some surprise truth and some nonsense..much the same as RV or scrying. But that doesn't mean it doesnt happen. I remember a neighbor lady that was a very religious Lutheran and every time she asked the Ouiga who controlled it ..the Ouiga said THE DEVIL. Every time I asked it said... "YOU"... Now I love cats so can't be the devil..so I suspect it was just different subconcious views....G Bill > --- greenmn wrote: > The question here is what exactly are you > communicating with when you use the > Ouija? Are you sure it's your subconscious? Reply | Forward

#1261

From: "David Humphries" Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 9:40 pm Subject: Re: Re: Denial of SC Tricks is a trick a_healey56 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hey Bill, I am more inclined toward believing that if one believes that the subconscious is a trickster, that the trick is more likely on them. This discussion, however, could go round and round in circles unless there is some consensus on what the subconscious actually is and how it works, and that doesn't seem likely either. Regarding ouija, I know many people who fervently believe that the ouija response you mention below would be due to malevolent spirits, mischievious entities, delusion, and maybe some more possibilities too, none of which are verifiable, and seem to me to all emanate from dogmatic beliefs of one variety or another. The truth is somewhere, and maybe contained within some dogma. I just don't know right now. Dave Reply | Forward

#1267

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 10:13 pm Subject: Re: Re: Denial of SC Tricks is a trick Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 haha, You must remember my Ouija story I have told several times. Rich Reply | Forward

#1280

From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m Date: Thu Nov 14, 2002 6:41 pm Subject: Re: Re: Denial of SC Tricks is a trick maliolana Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Aloha PJ, Well I can only talk about my 'trickster"...I feel closest to Nita on this...(sort of a triparthide or omniparthide.haha...An Inside integral part of me...outside me...and not sub but conscious self /or one of many subs...or other...or all of the above... I chose to anthromorphize my self evaluation and determinations of what is reality...This allows me to use more elements of self in my psychic toolbox!~...hahaha...and enjoy it a hell of a lot more...but I never underestimate a wise one......nor fall into any belief system that sucks like quick sand...or demands blind adherance to dogma of any kind...I am outa there!...hahaha All seeker dialogues are all good with me...at least untill it becomes obvious that they aren't...haha...Ahhh... this holistic talk really turns me on... hahaha... say my mammal/primate.keltic/blackfeet/viking selves......my entire being is many faceted...not just my face...hahahah The only time I feel real dogmatic myself ...about psi...anyway......is when someone else makes proclamations about esoteric info that they cannot prove ...yet they insist on a true/false or right/wrong scenario...Much too limiting for me... I even really liked most of Ann Rices books......some of them were great... Love & Light & Laughter Mali'o...aka...Dawna

// 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