Archived from the former firedocs blog. 22 February 2007
One of the basics about Learning Theory and the issue of feedback is that the closer the feedback is to the actual action and/or perception, the more educational the feedback is likely to be.
In Remote Viewing, the perception is often ridiculously tenuous, subtle, approximated, associated, and all sorts of other feelings-inside that make a good session as exciting as the constant challenge-thrill-swoosh of surfing, and a bad session like some version of pulling psychic teeth that is memorable only for its degree of misery.
One of the biggest problems with remote viewing practice is that if you don't spend enough time on the session, you may not get much data or much "depth" of data. On the other hand, the more time you spend on the session, the bigger a disaster it is when it's a bad session or off target, and the more time you've just lost to it. Most viewers are adults and work for a living. They don't have a ton of time. So, if it takes you 1.5-3 hours to do a session, obviously you aren't going to do very many per week, or if you do, you certainly aren't going to have time to do anything else with your life!
But there's another issue. Remember how not just tenuous, but FAST psi data often flies past. How subtle it can be. How-- well, many things that there aren't even words to describe.
In order for feedback to be clear, you need to be able to remember how things felt. The longer your session, the more experience, and the less clear some of that experience might be.
And equally important, you need to have some idea how the 'feeling' you got, compared to the data you wrote, and compared to the actual feedback for that point. The more data points you have in a session, and the more data points are in a given target, the less clear it is going to be exactly what-is-what in your data compared to session.
A recurring amazement RV gives me, is how there seem to be a limited number of "core forms and dynamics" in our reality, they simply have infinite variation. It is just astonishing how, even if you described a specific thing targeted to you exactly, how many other things in reality would be decently described in the same way. Sometimes, for a given data point, several things in the target could theoretically be the reason for that data. In order for feedback to educate you, you need to know WHAT data in the target your session is trying to describe.
Simplifying the targets is one obvious way to approach this, which is one reason why the phrase "basic targets" equates to the term "training targets" in layman's RV. Shortening the sessions is another way to approach it.
Since practice in a doubleblind with feedback is the #1 most important thing to developing viewer skill, anything that reduces either the value of practice or the amount of on-target practice you get in, is a major issue. If you can only do one session a day, and you have to give up your whole block of personal spare time for that three hour session, chances are viewing is going to be a lot more work for you than some others.
I think sometimes doing long, in depth sessions is important. But I also think that doing basically 10-15 minute "session exercises" is very important -- because if you don't succeed, you have time to do another, so you can "quit on a high," so you can be sure that you are 'succeeding with RV' every day.
And what about those days when you just don't have even for-sure 15 minutes?
Then do the Dive in 5. If you have a friend, do it as a tandem in the dojo, that's fun, when others are viewing the same target with you. If not, just do it alone. Grab an envelope from your pool, your number from your tasker, your task from taskerbot, your task from the viewer studios, or from any other online target source, and just DIVE.
You have X minutes (however many you allot for the exercise) to get as much data as well as you can and as fast as you can. Tell your mind, "No dirking around for an hour here, no waiting and waiting for data -- it's already in me, I know this, so GIVE it to me!" When your time is up, your time is up. Work on forcing yourself to feel the sense of urgency about it -- and disappointment when you couldn't get more into the timeframe.
I half-promise -- at the least, this totally works for ME, and I have seen it work for others -- that if you start setting out exercise periods of 5-15 minutes, and really focusing hard on the session when you do one, that if you had any issues with data taking a long time to come in, it'll start solving itself. You may likely start getting data the instant you focus on the task# and open to it.
And every time you 'dive', you are practicing:
* Connecting to yourself for info
* Allowing it come through -- fast
* Processing it through you
* Recording the information
* Getting feedback
and, given the briefer period of session time, likely remembering a lot more of the actual session-experience for optimal feedback application to your experience.
It's better to do two five minute sessions a day than NO sessions. The psyche hammering of constant in-protocol viewing keeps that belief system door open, that "fluency of allowing it".
I've done sessions in 60 seconds that had a surprising amount of decent data -- and usually my only problem was that I didn't have time to write down everything I actually got in my head during that time, and was sorry when I saw how much of it was good stuff but didn't get written down.
But the moral of the post is that there is no reason why a lack of time should have to hinder viewing, or why you should have to give up your entire personal life to do one session a day, work for a living, sleep, etc.