Basic Edu and RV Lite
Archived from the former firedocs blog. 29 April 2006
Nobody ever argues with the Periodic Table of Elements.
And I never heard anybody question why, when you use a neutral water base in chemistry, it should be pure.
Nobody disputes these things. The reasons are self-evident to all, with a minimum of consideration.
Ah, but those are basic factoids entrenched in "academia."
That is to say, the forced-schooling our government loves so much.
Which now takes 12-14 years to turn out a surprising number of people less educated than the average 11 year old of a century ago. (Only government could accomplish that, I suppose. Though to hear John Taylor Gatto
If chemistry were blacklisted from academia the way psi research is, maybe people would question such things all the time. "Mendeleyev has his opinions, and I have mine," they might say. "Nobel was a smart guy, but what has he done for us lately?" And: "Nobody I know thinks pH really matters." And: "Well you know the professors are just trying to keep control of things."
Maybe there'd be folks selling 'certificates' in chemistry, telling people pure water "only matters in the lab."
And, saying if anything without pure water ever has the same end-result, then truly-neutral "must not matter."
And, selling "Chemistry" that omits even the mention of the science details' existence... --- beyond, of course, claiming that science "validates" whatever test-tube Delight they're selling.
When basic education is lacking in a certain area, all knowledge after that is skewed.
When a word is not understood by the listener, all the info after that is skewed.
When the audience is starting from zero, a preliminary foundation is necessary.
Otherwise, it's building houses on sand. Everything only seems right... for awhile.
When the walls come tumbling down, or when all attempts to build any floor above the first one fail, the sincere owner, who worked hard for that house, is going to be righteously irked about the information they didn't get from the expert house builder they paid to teach them "house building." Of course, the expert house builder may say, and be quite right, "I only agreed to teach you how to build a house. I was not engaged to teach you anything about foundations." True. But they knew the issues of foundation existed. It would have been such minimal effort to say, "This issue matters."
Many people do not know what a science protocol is. There are official definitions but let me provide my version: A science protocol is the sum total of all rules, situational factors and planned processes which, as a group, are used for a given science experiment.
Now, within that big "set" of stuff, there may be lots of processes. If the subject is chemistry, there might be rules about your ingredients; there might be rules about how ingredients are combined, down to detailed stuff like how to pour things from one beaker to another; there might even be rules about the type of equipment used, what is done with substances after the experiment, and more. There might be rules about how information is recorded. There might be rules about how to measure the results.
If referring to only some of the elements within an overall protocol, it's often referred to as "the protocols"--the rules, whatever part of the rules you happen to be talking about at the time. If referring to "all" the rules, you usually use the singular form of the word, and say "The protocol."
Psychic functioning done within a Remote Viewing protocol contains some basic elements, though details around them vary. I'm going to copy (and slightly improve) something I posted at TKR recently as there's no point in rewriting it.
These components comprise primary "points of an appropriate remote viewing protocol":
1. Deliberate, active psychic functioning (e.g. not spontaneous or random)
2. Controlled against non-psi info transfer (e.g. in a doubleblind, at least to the info-points being requested)
3. Session data recorded (e.g., documented and secured for the record)
4. Feedback obtained (and compared with session data to evaluate accuracy)
If the data was accurate, then you could say it was genuinely psi-derived info, or to be formal about it, the way to say it is that if you get feedback, compare to session data, and determine the data was accurate, and the target was set up on purpose, and all non-psi forms of data transfer were prevented, then: "A successful remote viewing has taken place."
If the data was wrong, then you have no idea what its source might be. Imagination?, who knows.
If the above points of protocol were not in place, then you don't really know whether (or how much of, or what-of) the data was transferred or inferred by the psychic through non-psychic means. Since we have to compare to feedback to even know it is truly "psychic" in origin, then there is no point to considering feedback a validation if your collection process is likely polluted.
If the type of psi format is 'free response' (e.g., not card-guessing), and it is performed within an appropriate remote viewing protocol, then officially it can be called Remote Viewing.
By "default", the psychic may simply "open their mind" for the occasion and record whatever occurs to them.
If the psychic has some systematic "personal process" for attempting to perceive, understand, decode, and communicate the information, as an attempt to control the process and increase accuracy, then the situation would be a form of CONTROLLED remote viewing.
There is no rule that you have to use "someone else's method" for your process. You can use, or create, any method you like. The only measure of the value of doing this, will be your results of course. Swann's CRV (and its various derivatives in the field today) were specifically geared to address exactly that area. How well they do so seems to depend on the person and the investment.
It was psi being performed within an RV protocol that gave us what legitimacy the RV term ever had.
Scientists have long said, "To be legitimately 'remote viewing', it must be performed within a Remote Viewing protocol." They meant, the science protocol and all its elements. "Method" (the viewer's hands-on process) were one point of that protocol; it could be set for one certain method, or left open for the viewer to decide.
But the media you hear will usually refer to someone who is saying they teach "the Remote Viewing protocols." They mean a psychic method. That may be legitimate, but it is just one part of the larger protocol. If they don't use that method within a proper Remote Viewing protocol, then it's just the method... not Remote Viewing.
It is up to viewers to educate themselves. Methods-trainers may do a fabulous job of teaching a good method in some cases, but more education is required for the overall subject. We would not expect one advanced math class to make a person an engineer, after all. Any serious subject---and I take Remote Viewing pretty seriously---requires more than a few days of inquiry.
Many people cannot understand the difference between a method (sometimes called "protocols" which is a bit confusing to the public) and a science protocol.
You cannot compare a methodology (e.g., "CRV") to "An RV Protocol" because the protocol is so much bigger. The methodology would just be one part of it.
Here is a quick overview, a visual example I posted at TKR to try and map out how things fit together. Click the image to view the page in context.
May I just repeat for the record:
It was psi being performed within an RV protocol that gave us what legitimacy the RV term ever had.
It was psi being performed outside the protocol but "still called RV" that gave us Hale-Bopp and 47 other varieties of lunacy, cultism, bogus claims and media marketing madness.
If anybody serious about understanding remote viewing learns only one thing, it ought to be what makes RV distinctive.
It isn't just one thing that does it; any of the protocol points (including method) may be used on their own, or in different situations. It is the combination of all those things at once, together with free-response format of psi functioning, that makes RV distinctive.
Add to this a conscious, dynamic process where the viewer attempts to better understand, be aware of, and control the psychic experience, and you have something worth taking seriously.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment