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 : 3146-3186 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3146?)
14:48:57
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3146

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 3:58 pm Subject: Re: subconscious "world view" pjgaenir Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Actually I see where yer comin from Doc, and any efforts that might work toward making the whole process clearer are worthy of inquiry! It seems to me rather like how we as a culture seem to expect every other person on earth to learn English rather than us learning their languages. (We're lucky to learn English with today's public education...) Or the way most people train dogs to roll over, sit up, shake hands, speak or attack, but they don't think that maybe the dog has something to say to THEM that they'd like to have in that shared vocabulary/action, such as, "I want attention," "I want food" or something. It's only what the humans want that matters. It just seems that as a larger cultural issue, we seem to expect communication to come to us, to our so-called left brain. As a culture we seem instantly frustrated with anything (or anyone) that does not play by the rules we already know. That is not obvious and predictable for us. It may be that the primary nature of reality does not include objective, solid objects let alone with names in english! It may be that expecting the subconscious to do this translating -- rather than us learning more about ourselves so our conscious mind has more understanding instead -- is completely unreasonable. Maybe all translation into words comes through the conscious mind, albeit levels of conscious that we are not really paying attention to, but CAN learn to be more aware of. I don't believe in "raw data", I think anything that gets to word form is already considerably processed within the individual. I think our ability to get specific labels about a target sometimes depends on our having directly encountered that 'thing' in physical life (though this applies to concepts, feelings as well). I once went through my lab book and realized that not one thing that I got accurate was foreign to me -- every accurate data point (and I am talking about specifics, not data like "flat" or something...) was something known to me. And when I got symbology, all the symbology was using elements experienced by me at some point (no matter how weird), when I did not have the personal experience of something specific I needed to know about the target. I think this is much of the basis of what I call PRE-AOL as well. There is analytical overlay which by name infers an analytical process (although it is used in a broader sense. Buchanan has various acronyms that relate to some of the things outside analysis). But there is also, I believe (I could be wrong), a certain "closest pattern matching" going on inside us prior to any analytical level of consciousness being reached. I think sometimes we get _what we later call AOL_ because we didn't have an exact pattern match, so something in our experiential library was used instead. By experience I mean, not by sight, but personal experience. This seems to tie into people often doing better on targets about something they know a great deal about. It's as if every experience humans have creates a reference library, and in remote viewing, our 'inner vocabulary' is defined by the size of that reference library. It may be that people with extensive life experience would have a slight advantage in this particular aspect of RV, simply because their 'inner vocabulary' is larger. So, perhaps an older man who's spent his whole life constantly learning new stuff and traveling all over the world in a zillion situations, might -- in this one aspect, mind you, there are several -- have a real advantage over a young man whose world has been mostly limited to his home area and typical suburban life experiences. It may be that our so-called subconscious perceives things at an energetic level and, like a baby learning to talk, has to encounter something many times before some discernment starts to come about. In a way it's like we're babies learning to perceive reality all over again, but in a different way this time -- through our inner senses rather than through our body. Initially it's all just a blur and jumble. Over time as we compare perception to how those around us perceive -- or in the case of RV, to our feedback -- we gradually learn to discern corners, then broad shapes and colors, then basic concepts, then eventually more detail, and finally deeper contexts. While I'm on this topic, another thing occurs to me... maybe the reason that in-person feedback such as on local targets often has good session results, is because time isn't an issue and the feedback actually creates the "physical experience" to expand the "inner vocabulary-library of experience". Just thoughts. PJ Reply | Forward

#3149

From: "Eva" Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 11:24 pm Subject: Re: subconscious "world view" k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > "pjgaenir" most people train dogs to roll over, sit up, shake hands, > speak or attack, but they don't think that maybe the dog has > something to say to THEM that they'd like to have in that shared > vocabulary/action, such as, "I want attention," "I want food" or > something. It's only what the humans want that matters. LOL, I see you chose a dog training metaphor as well! But any decent dog owner does in fact learn when an animal wants food or water. Beyond that, almost all owners quickly learn when a dog is saying he has to tinkle, hehehe. But beyond simple things, you are right-what is a dog thinking as he sits there? What could he tell us if he knew how? We rarily consider anything that is not delivered to us on a silver platter. But that doesn't mean it isn't there. -E -------------------------- Moderator's note: Yeah--owners DO learn. But my point is that few if any actually consider these things consciously, of the dog having equal importance, and make them a part of the formal training/learning experience. We are trained by animals without our consent, which makes the training a whole lot more impressive than that we do of them. ;-) PJ Reply | Forward

#3159

From: "Glyn" Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 1:55 pm Subject: RE: Re: subconscious "world view" gebega Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi, Our dog has taught us that one type of bark means " Stranger alert", another slightly different one means "Open the door for me", and another type means "I want food." (she tries that one a lot :-). There are various sounds in between, and we are still learning. We can read most of her facial expressions quite easily now.... and she even has one for indignation. All dog owners probably get similar training :-). She has got her head pressed hard against my right hand right now (making typing difficult). She is wagging her tail frantically while staring straight up at me, and is now trying to push my hand off the keyboard. This means "Yes, I know I've just had one treat, but stop what you are doing I want another.one.....Now thicko!" I guess I'd better obey:-). LOL! Oh, and just so this mail is not too far off topic, she can be at the top of the garden and still know when I open a bar of chocolate...even when I'm not in the mood for sharing and use extreme stealth. Hows that for canine RV (CRV)? LOL! Glyn Reply | Forward

#3151

From: David Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 5:14 pm Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" a_healey56 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Palyne, I had a very vivid dream that I woke up out of (I'm having more of these this last year) in which I was reading a letter sent to me from a former girlfriend. She was uncharacteristically cute about how she did it, using different colors and mediums to write on, different styles and sizes of handwritten fonts, cartoon pictures and cut-outs, etc. In the dream, I read, understood, and remembered every word of the seven-or-so page letter, which unfortunately upon waking started fading from my memory faster than I could reach for my hand held tape recorder. I remembered the tone of the text, but could only remember about one sentence by the time I got the recorder turned on. The entire dream was just reading this letter word for word, and it seemed as though it lasted quite a while. If it were typed out like I'm typing now, it probably would have been about 3/4 of a page long. How do you view this in light of what you wrote below? I was dreaming the whole thing. Dave > Maybe all translation into words comes through the conscious mind, > albeit levels of conscious that we are not really paying attention > to, but CAN learn to be more aware of. I don't believe in "raw > data", I think anything that gets to word form is already > considerably processed within the individual. Reply | Forward

#3170

From: Karl Boyken Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 2:14 pm Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" kboyken Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 I'm not so sure that the subconscious is all that primitive. It doesn't seem to share our waking consciousness's idea of what is and isn't important, but it may be that it has a better idea of what we need than does our waking consciousness. At every Monroe program I've attended, people are always focused on some kind of experience they're expecting, even though we all know we should drop our expectations and accept the experience we're given. I remember listening to one very frustrated woman who had hoped to have a certain type of experience during a tape, and didn't get it. One of the trainers asked her, "Well, what _did_ happen?" And the woman replied, "Oh, not much. I just went up to this glowing white area and this glowing white goddess-type woman wanted to talk to me." But it wasn't what she was focused on. Another person at another program was bent on meeting his sister, who had died a few years previously. After one tape, he described to us an incredible experience, going up through a huge energy vortex or portal and encountering all kinds of things. But it wasn't what he was after. At the last program I attended, one guy was very upset he wasn't seeing anything. The last morning, he collapsed on the floor and began speaking in some foreign language he didn't know. When he came back, he described how he'd been an Egyptian priest and had tapped into all kinds of information. But when we left, he was still miffed he hadn't seen visuals. Karl -- Karl Boyken kboyken...net http://www.avalon.net/~kboyken/ We dance 'round in a ring and suppose, while the Secret sits in the middle and knows. --Robert Frost Reply | Forward

#3156

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 4:41 pm Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > PJ wrote > It may be that our so-called subconscious perceives > things at an > energetic level and, like a baby learning to talk, > has to encounter > something many times before some discernment starts > to come about. > In a way it's like we're babies learning to perceive > reality all over Exactly, I might add that Rob similiarly ( Abbott) really stresses getting an energetic "feel" of a car or a person etc..over and over again..until you can reach out and mentally touch a car and feel..Oh yes that's a car, that's a man, a woman etc. Pru had a method for telling men from women.. you reached out and mentally check their equiptment.. Typical of Pru's iconoclastic methodology..but again..it's something one can get a grip on..( no pun intended ..sheesh). Best Regards, Bill Reply | Forward

#3160

From: mike reid Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 2:09 pm Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" mikr46 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Isn't this what Joe Mcmoneagle has been has been telling us. It is the threshold(filter) between the 'conscious' and 'unconscious' that is the key. Feedback is the process of 'tuning' the filter to understand and match the signal. I agree that by the time it gets to 'english' it has had a lot of 'signal processing' but the 'information' processing seems to be a 'conscious' phenomenon. However, I am still searching for a reasonable 'addressing' Mike Reply | Forward

#3175

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 3:14 pm Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Mike, I'm convinced much of the processing is sub ( below) conciousness. That's why you might see a rope instead of a snake or a cone shaped hat instead of a pyramid. The very first awareness of these "coded" signals is the AOL in many cases. I think the idea of a noise filter is the best anology to work with. We need tighter connections to the signal. Bill Reply | Forward

#3186

From: mike reid Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 4:49 pm Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" mikr46 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Bill, Yes, I agree there is processing outside of 'consciousness'. As someone noted that 'sub' implies lower or of lesser value. That is not the case here as you seem to agree. The 'model' I am working on is based on many of the constructs of computers and radio/tv. In my opinion, the 'mind' is the analagous to an application processor, with a bidirectional filter that is analogous an active filter. The diference is that this filter is capable of decoding fields outside but inclusive of E-M fields. In our prebirth development our filter is 'BIOS'd'by the parental lineage. Once we are developed we begin to be updated with additional 'capabilities'. However, they are generally divide into the 'intuitve'(psi) sensors and the 'logical'(non-psi) sensors. Each with a 'feedbak from the other. It would appear that they are 'alterable' biochemically and 'signal/carrier' strength/tuning. Sorry I don't hav a better way to communicate the concept. However, I will say that this concept is not limited to 'species' as that would be handled in the "initial BIOS conditioning" level Mike pjrv : Messages : 3125-3221 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3125?)
14:50:21
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3125

From: "waterway_21" Date: Fri May 30, 2003 11:41 am Subject: subconscious "world view" waterway_21 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 I have read here, and in earlier archives, and in various books on the subject, that the subconscious mind is what is in touch with the "source" of information that RV accesses through the 'signal line'. And various writers point out that the conscious mind and the subconscious mind seem to have different "agendas" or "world view" for percieving and processing info. Can someone describe to me what the subconscious mind's "world view" is? What is important to the subconscious mind? Why does it pick up and communicate some aspects of our reality, and not others. Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -Benton Reply | Forward

#3127

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Fri May 30, 2003 10:46 pm Subject: Re: subconscious "world view" docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hello Benton, Too bad we have no psychiatrists or psychologists on the list.. I'm sure they could bury us in information. The problem is I'm not sure their idea of the subconcious is the same as what say Lyn or Ingo or McMoneagles' idea of it is. But I do think it is a very important question for RVers to understand. I'm going to forwards the question to Bill Stroud a psychologist who took Lyns advanced courses and see if he has a good idea. Bill -------------------------- Moderator's note: I rather doubt McMoneagle's ideas would agree with most othre peoples', although curiously (and sorta humorously, but never mind) I find when reading Swann's materials that they actually agree on a great many fundamental things. PJ Reply | Forward

#3128

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Fri May 30, 2003 8:33 pm Subject: Re: subconscious "world view" Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Personally, I think it is a scapegoat for the preponderence of incorrect data and conflicting results, kinda like hanging your hat on the nearest convenient hooklike object. Rich > I have read here, and in earlier archives, and in various books on > the subject, that the subconscious mind is what is in touch with > the "source" of information that RV accesses through the 'signal > line'. Reply | Forward

#3137

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 2:26 pm Subject: Re: subconscious "world view" docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Dear Rich, I usually appreciate your posts, but since you ( as everyone else) really don't have a CLUE how RV works or whether the subconcious plays an important role, why make this hang dog comment? Is it because your RV never contains incorrect data and conflicting results? Or is it because you feel it is against the RV Gods to look for some reasons for incorrect data and conflicting results?? Best Regards, Bill > Personally, I think it is a scapegoat for the > preponderence of incorrect data and conflicting > results, kinda like hanging your hat on the nearest > convenient hooklike object. Reply | Forward

#3135

From: "Eva" Date: Sat May 31, 2003 1:18 pm Subject: Re: subconscious "world view" k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Expert psychologists are much like people of any field. THere are dozens of competing theories on the subconscious and unconscious including cognitive, behavioral, Jungian, Freudian, etc. The answers you get will depend on which psychologist you ask. Then you can start asking psychiatrists and come up with a whole new pile of answers, LOL! -E Reply | Forward

#3140

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 11:34 pm Subject: Re: subconscious "world view" Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Bill Pendragon wrote: > I usually appreciate your posts, but since you ( as > everyone else) really don't have a CLUE how RV works > or whether the subconcious plays an important role, > why make this hang dog comment? That's the point. No one has a clue but the sub model is too often treated as a given. Mostly, I object to the theory that the sub is some kind of uncooperative, obstreperous, troublemaker whose purpose is to make things difficult. > Is it because your RV never contains incorrect data > and conflicting results? That certainly is not true. :) > Or is it because you feel it is against the RV Gods to > look for some reasons for incorrect data and > conflicting results?? I think a simpler explanation is that we are generally psi deaf, psi blind, psi numb, psi "can't taste it", psi "can't smell it" to various degrees or just can't pay attention and filter out the noise of the physical world. And then part is just plain orneriness ( at the conscious level ) being suspicious of most of what is claimed in psi-land because of the high incidence of outright BS and the general scarcity of reproducible data. Maybe Ed is right- the angels are in charge. :) Rich Reply | Forward

#3143

From: David Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 12:00 pm Subject: Re: subconscious "world view" a_healey56 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 I agree with Rich's points below, and the one below has been a burr under my butt for a long time. It's always been my suspicion that the model of the so-called "subconscious" that seems to be so dogmatically accepted by so many is way off the mark, and has become a stumbling block rather than a helpful model. I don't know the antidote for this infection, but I'll continue to pursue it. I have a nagging feeling that a correct understanding of such things would be of great benefit to anyone who desires to know. I've yet to come across an explanation from any so-called experts, gurus, masters, religious leaders, philosophers, etc. that resonates with me. Must be one of those pesky understandings that has to come from within. ;-) David > That's the point. No one has a clue but the sub model is > too often treated as a given. Mostly, I object to the > theory that the sub is some kind of uncooperative, obstreperous, > troublemaker whose purpose is to make things difficult. ---------------------- Moderator's note: We've had a couple talks about this before as well. One thread I recall, folks can reach here: http://tinyurl.com/da3i -- PJ Reply | Forward

#3147

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 4:26 pm Subject: Re: subconscious "world view" docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 LOL, OK Rich.. just the usual amiable crustiness I guess..G. I can understand your frustration, but I think you shouldn't discourage students from thinking about these things or you begin to sound like too many RV instructors I've heard. Best Regards, Bill Reply | Forward

#3134

From: "Eva" Date: Sat May 31, 2003 10:32 pm Subject: Re: subconscious "world view" k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 In my experience, the subconscious of different people tends to have individual variance. By analyzing one's own sessions, one can get an idea of how that works for you. But in general one might say it is often a bit more artistic or right brained than our normal consciousness. Things that fascinate and intrigue sometimes get more air time than 'boring' waking world labels. It is my theory also that rv sessions tend to be a window into the inner thought processes of the viewer and will often be refective of the viewers personality in general. -E Reply | Forward

#3136

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 5:17 pm Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Eva, I agree, but will add my own ideas here. My RV conciousness also likes artistic designs or simple geometric shapes. It doesn't seem to key easily on human faces or feelings unlike my "working subconcious , which is most keenly intrested in other people. And I haven't learned to pick up feelings /emotions which are dessert to my working subconcious. It tends to convert unusual items into metaphors that are similiarly shaped familiar things. Or it simplifies them. This is much like in a dream. Bill Reply | Forward

#3145

From: Benton Bogle Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 3:34 pm Subject: RE: Re: subconscious "world view" waterway_21 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Thanks to everyone who contributed, and will contribute here on this topic. Eva, you said something that fascinated and intrigued me, and I hope you will expand on it for me, please. Regarding how the subconscious works, you stated: "Things that fascinate and intrigue sometimes get more air time than 'boring' waking world labels. " Do you mean that things that our conscious minds find fascinating are also given more air-time by the subsconscious? Do you think that maybe it is our conscious mind "filtering" or "remembering" more of what it finds fascinating from our subconscious experience? It seems to me, and I could be way off (it could happen....), that a lot of subconscious material never even gets caught by the part of the mind that describes/recalls the subconscious content. There seems to be so much subconscious material that is presented to the conscious mind, but only a bit, only the fascinating parts, get pulled out and recognized by the conscious mind. But.... if I am wrong and the subconscious DOES seem to gravitate to the same stuff the conscious mind would deem "intriguing".... then why? I can understand what is fascinating to the conscious mind, the rational, ego mediated mind. But for that artistic, right brain, gestalt viewing mind.... what qualities do sites or events have that it finds "fascinating"? What is it interested in when it goes out and RVs? Thanks again. -Benton [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#3153

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 4:34 pm Subject: RE: Re: subconscious "world view" docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Benton , I'm not speaking for Eva, but it's not quite the same as what the concious mind finds interesting. It's so primitive ( in my mind) that it frequently misses wholistic fascinating things..but dwells on the small details that are distinct and unusual. For instance one target was a beautiful model that caused my jaw to drop when I saw the feedback..but all I really got from my Rv was the color of her hair and the pattern it swirled in and an ornament in her hair. The rest of her beautiful face and figure were ignored completely by my RV conciousness.. G Bill Reply | Forward

#3154

From: "Eva" Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 11:16 pm Subject: Re: subconscious "world view" k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Benton Bogle "Things that fascinate and intrigue sometimes get more > air time than 'boring' waking world labels. " > > Do you mean that things that our conscious minds find > fascinating are also > given more air-time by the subsconscious? Yes, I think that is part of it. Although sometimes it seems the subconscious mind also has certain types of things that it will gravitate to for some reason that is not always obvious to the conscious mind. > Do you think that maybe it is our > conscious mind "filtering" or "remembering" more of what it finds > fascinating from our subconscious experience? I am not sure. That could well be part of it. ALso, it could have to do with attention and emotions that take place later during analysis. > It seems to me, and I could be way off (it could > happen....), that a lot of > subconscious material never even gets caught by > the part of the mind that > describes/recalls the subconscious content. There > seems to be so much > subconscious material that is presented to the > conscious mind, but only a > bit, only the fascinating parts, get pulled out > and recognized by the > conscious mind. Could be, but also I do gets lots of really boring stuff too. But I do agree there is likely a lot of conscious filtering going on at multiple levels. > But.... if I am wrong and the subconscious DOES > seem to gravitate to the > same stuff the conscious mind would deem "intriguing".... > then why? Because it is part of the same entity? > I can > understand what is fascinating to the conscious mind, > the rational, ego > mediated mind. But for that artistic, right brain, > gestalt viewing mind.... > what qualities do sites or events have that it > finds "fascinating"? What is > it interested in when it goes out and RVs? It probably depends on who's doing the viewing. Just like one great artist can be so different from another, anything from realism to cubism to minimalism.. -E Reply | Forward

#3148

From: Benton Bogle Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 8:30 am Subject: RE: Re: subconscious "world view" waterway_21 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 PJ, I'd like to add to something you wrote, so you and others can help me clarify these ideas. You stated: >"I think our ability to get specific labels about a target > sometimes depends on our having directly encountered that > 'thing' in physical life (though this applies to concepts, > feelings as well)." This seems to be the case, as in the oft quoted example of Hella Hammid's inability to put into words her RV of a Nuclear Reactor. She percieved a container creating steam and thought it was a teapot. But she'd never experienced a nuclear generator, which uses nuclear fuel to boil water and create steam, so when she put words to her perceptions, she got teapot. IIRC, that was the story. Anyway.... I get the feeling the prime-consciousness(subconscious) mind gets the picture, but we have to have some experience in our conscious mind to give that picture a working definition. From what I can reason, it seems that the conscious, everyday mind has evolved with a function for the human biological animal. Its best suited to organizing the physical world into related concepts. A mental concept is anything we can describe with various properties, for example, a teapot is round, is metal, holds water, creates steam, etc. All of these concepts link up with each other via these various properties. Concepts can include physical things, but also memories or events. They also can be any of the 5 senses, so that I can smell hay, and immediately that odor connects with an event from 30 years earlier, and I immediately recall being on my uncle's farm as a child. All the memories and associations of that event are linked simply by that sensation of smell. Likewise, I can smell apples cooking, my conscious mind automatically connects that odor with apple pie, which connects to my memory of apple pies in the kitchen, which sets my feet in motion toward the kitchen. In this way, we can connect events and objects together to better help us move about and utilize the physical world. The conscious mind is there to function for the biolgical organism. But the prime-consciousness(subconscious) isn't primarily for the biological, is it? I do not know what the prime-conscious' function is (if any), but I do think it has access to the pool of info that RV uses. It seems that the prime-conscious provides info across the limen to the conscious, but the conscious needs some properties, some concepts that can latch onto the incoming info before it can "percieve" it, before it can recognize it, then work it into the system of connected concepts. It is that "working into the system of concepts" that creates AOL. I think this is why describing is better than naming during RV, and why a 3rd or 4th person should take the description and convert the list of properties into known object during CRV. It seems ERV is going about getting info from the prime-conscious to the conscious a whole different way.... And you also pointed out: > "maybe the reason that in-person feedback such as on > local targets often has good session results, is because > time isn't an issue and the feedback actually creates the > "physical experience" to expand the "inner vocabulary-library > of experience". " It seems the feedback is valuable because the prime-conscious isn't bound by time, that is something the conscious mind is limited to. The feedback establishes properties that can be related to during the RV session, for the conscious mind to grap hold of. Feedback creates memories and events that have properties that the conscious mind can relate to.... in the RV session. AND.....(no really, this is my last point here) in relating this back to what Eva said in another post on this thread, an "intriguing or fascinating" concept is one with gobs of properties that connect it to lots of other concepts. When we experience something exciting, it creates connections to many other objects, events, sensations and emotions, which makes that object or event VERY big to the RVer when they are looking around, and easier to view since it has so many more dimensions/properties. Any feedback on my conjecturing? Thanks. -Benton Reply | Forward

#3152

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 9:50 pm Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > The subconscious (I don't like the concept of division, but since we're > using it...) may be the first creature on earth that humans cannot just > dominate and command (other than cats :-)). Which since it seems to be > 'the other part of us' is really pretty funny! PJ Wait till we discover that there is an RV gene that we share with telepathic plants. :) Rich Reply | Forward

#3163

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 2:20 pm Subject: Re: Re: cats etc. docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Geez Rich you don't even believe in cat telepathy.. You are such a skeptic..G. But I think Crows are even more telepathic than cats. I'm befriending three in my neighborhood after Viv suggested how telepathic they were. They are quite incredible creatures. I used to be attacked regularly every spring by dive bombing crows...but now they have befriended me as I telepathically tell them what amazing and intelligent creatures they are ..They eat it all up. Especially when I wear my black leather jacket and strut around very crow-like. BTW..Perhaps you can start your own TV show as "The Plant DNA-Psychic".. You feel their aura and pronounce what there genetic makeup needs to prosper. ..G Actually I bet you could do it. Bill > Wait till we discover that there is an RV gene that > we share with telepathic plants. :) > Rich Reply | Forward

#3221

From: "maliolana" Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:34 am Subject: Re: subconscious "world view" maliolana Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Wait till we discover that there is an RV gene that > we share with telepathic plants. :) > Rich Uhhh...and maybe even an amoeba or bacteria...Perhaps even...a virus? DKWW Reply | Forward

#3161

From: Benton Bogle Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 6:53 am Subject: RE: Re: subconscious "world view" waterway_21 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Bill, you stated: > "... but it's not quite the same > as what the concious mind finds interesting. It's so > primitive ( in my mind) that it frequently misses > wholistic fascinating things..but dwells on the small > details that are distinct and unusual. " That is what I was originally curious about. It seems the prime-conscious(subconscious) is drawn to aspects of sites that are often very different from that of the waking consciousness of the RVer. I think that, as Eva pointed out, the two "minds" often have similar interests because they are part of the same "individual", but it seems annoyingly often that they don't "see things the same way". Again, I am curious if there is a way to understand what the prime-consciousness is looking for, and in learning that, be able to understand better the material garnered during RVing. I've seen written that some folks train their prime-conscious to use certain ideograms Also, we seem to be talking about the prime-consciousness in two ways...... ( This is starting to look like the Hindu discussion of consciousness... every aspect divided into a handfull of sub-aspects....G!) We describe the prime-conscious as either childlike and primitive, or as comperable to waking consciousness, but with a different way of percieving and interacting with reality. I do appreciate all the conjecture and insight you folks are providing, it really does help . Reply | Forward

#3174

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 6:14 pm Subject: RE: Re: subconscious "world view" docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Benton, Yes CRV, TRV etc people do train themselves to present a list of basic ideograms for say water, people, energy, etc. So the preconcious of the RVer can be trained. However, I'm not sure if they are really training the primary-receiving conciousness or they learn to recognize the energy pattern that it presents at a slightly higher conciousness level that is almost fully concious and comes out when pen touches paper. Also as I mentioned Rob A. does the same thing.. training himself over and over to "feel" a car, a woman, a tree etc. until he can identify the primal suconcious energy signal correctly. But he doesn't draw an ideogram for them..just catalogues an energetic "feeling". Interesting discussion IMO. Bill ----------------------------- Moderator's note: One of the few differences between various acronym'd methodologies is that some are taught preconceived, specific ideograms (like everybody would use the same ones for manmade, water, etc.) and some are taught to come up with their own, whatever the body seems to spontaneously do (suggestions may be made as ideas, but it's individual). I'm not sure it matters. But it does make a difference in practice and interpretation in some cases, as well as awareness (or perhaps allowance...) that they tend to change over time. -- PJ Reply | Forward

#3164

From: "Sharon Webb" Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 4:19 pm Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" sharwebb_30512 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 PJ, I did try a time or three to find out what is going on in my various dogs' minds. I used a Silva technique which calls for figuratively "putting on" a person's head. I figured if it worked for George Bush senior and W., then it oughtta work for dogs, too. The first time, I tried on my long-haired dachshund's head. We were in the kitchen and I got that he was very interested in our other dog who was way down the hall in the bathroom. Suddenly I "knew" that he was going to run down the hall and bite her on the leg just for devilment and to see if he could startle her. Quick as a flash, he did just that. And he DID startle the hell out of the other dog. Another time I tried it on our keeshond pup. Suddenly, I was very small and looking up at the dinner table (where I was sitting). Then my stomach growled very noticeably with a hunger pang and I felt like sighing. Another time, I tried it on a six-month old male pup. I found myself looking longingly at our grown female dog and thinking, "Gee, she smells good." :-) Sharon sharwebb...net www.fractalus.com/sharon Reply | Forward

#3179

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 5:39 pm Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Sharon, FAscinating technique. Just for fun..I put on my Sharon Web head.. I saw a tree.. woodsy environment..wood frame house..brown.. didn't get any emotions except peacefulness.. perhaps you were sleeping. Best Wishes, Bill Reply | Forward

#3167

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 8:52 pm Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 LOL, It just proves the RV saying..... "no more secrets". > Pru had a method for telling men from women.. you > reached out and mentally check their equiptment.. > Typical of Pru's iconoclastic methodology..but > again..it's something one can get a grip on..( no pun > intended ..sheesh). Reply | Forward

#3172

From: "Elizabeth Hambrook" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 6:25 am Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" ozblueriver Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > little book I picked up written in 1954 by J. Allen Boone. He wrote > about his experiences with movie dog Strongheart, speaking about how > he turned the tables to learn with the dog as his spiritual professor. That sounds very interesting. Can you elaborate a little? Cheers Liz Reply | Forward

#3182

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 3:42 pm Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Boone was given care of a German Shepard movie dog, who was so brilliant and psychic that he found he could communicate solely by thinking things to the dog and vice verse. Then he goes into some other psychic pet stories. Boone felt that having "faith" in the animals ability helped to open the psychic window of animals. It's a really well written book and great story. Is it true..? I don't know..but I hope so..G Bill Reply | Forward

#3220

From: "maliolana" Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:11 am Subject: Re: subconscious "world view" maliolana Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Aloha Bill, > he found he > could communicate solely by thinking things to the dog > and vice verse. Then he goes into some other psychic > pet stories. Boone felt that having "faith" in the > animals ability helped to open the psychic window of > animals. It's a really well written book and great > story. Is it true..? I don't know..but I hope so..G > It works with humans as well...Seriously...I live in a multicultural state...People from all over the world live on every street...We have no 'white' neighborhoods...So certain skills are acquired...if one is to live without fear...and as a community... When I was in physical thwerapy a few years ago...My handivan was the same... as the one that picked up the mentally challenged kids (folks) from their school facility... I had a wonderful time with them...forgot all about my pain for a 1/2 hr or so...(they have great senses of humor)...I was so stoked that they accepted me...One day I boarded the bus and the Queen Bee ( approxc 4 ft tall/25 yr old/Down syndrome)...Asked me..."Nice lady (that is the name they gave me)...are you mental?"...I told her..."Well yes I am!" The entire bus full of kids cracked up!...Sooo...my point is... Recognizing the worth/value of any living thing (even machines...but that is another couple of stories)...is appreciated by that lifeform... and I have received much more than gratitude in return... I think Liz's dog was aware she was typing about him and he wanted her to stop!hahah...Like babies and small children...Almost anything we focus on...becomes aware (has some awareness)of that focus... DKWW Reply | Forward

#3173

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 5:42 pm Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi fortune, I READ THAT BOOK TOO.. GREAT READ.. WAIT UNITL YOU GET TO THE TRANSCENDENT FLY. Best.. Bill > little book I picked up written in 1954 by J. Allen > Boone. He wrote > about his experiences with movie dog Strongheart, > speaking about how > he turned the tables to learn with the dog as his > spiritual professor. Reply | Forward

#3177

From: "Linda & John Garvey" Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 6:56 pm Subject: Re: Re: subconscious "world view" linda_g7us Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 With any form of psi activity, somehow I find that thinking/feeling/visualizing in terms of right-brain/left-brain functioning together in harmony, works better for me than anything to do with conscious/subconscious. I'm sitting here trying to figure out how to explain this further, but no luck so far LOLOL. Linda G "The distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one." -- Albert Einstein -- Reply | Forward

#3183

From: Benton Bogle Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 1:01 pm Subject: RE: Re: subconscious "world view" waterway_21 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Wow Bill, this is fantastic stuff. I have been reading over Mr. Ingo Swann's writings on Signal to Noise and Layers of Meaning, and this is right on target. http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/1.html You said: "The very first awareness of these "coded" signals is the AOL in many cases. I think the idea of a noise filter is the best anology to work with. We need tighter connections to the signal. " What do you do to clear up noise? How do you get a stronger hold on the signal? Reply | Forward

#3196

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 1:11 pm Subject: RE: Re: INGOS SITE docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Benton, Thanks for the websites very impressive lectures..sometimes what the Master (Ingo) says makes more sense after fooling around on your own first..G I tried to read Ingo's site when I first started PJ's list over 5 years ago..and it made NO SENSE AT ALL. Now it seems crammed with pure genius..G Best Regards, Bill Reply | Forward

#3200

From: "waterway_21" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 2:22 pm Subject: Re: INGOS SITE waterway_21 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > " I tried to read Ingo's site when I first started > PJ's list over 5 years ago..and it made NO SENSE > AT ALL. Now it seems crammed with pure genius..G" Bill, I agree. I think it helps a lot to have read a bunch on this subject before wading into Mr. Swann's writings. His style is unusual, but it seems very well suited to the material he is discussing. He approaches a concept from about a half dozen angles to pull out all the aspects worth observing. I was talking with my wife about this today, and before her eyes completely glazed over, I commented that you folks who do this a lot often are not able to fully write (or verbalize) all the aspects of the experience, so you have to expect a lot of nuances and subtle connections in discussing it. Mr. Swann is that way, in that he has a lot more to say than he can fully hold in words. I also think that these experts have a lot more to say than they KNOW they have to say. I find myself filling in the margins of their writings with insights they didn't directly say, but are provided in the dynamics of the processes they describe. Its good stuff. -Benton

// 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