Personalization and Fear of Psi

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 07 May 2006

I've been thinking about something for awhile, waiting for "how to articulate it" to settle down. It almost seemed to require stages of development, and I posted the first in a couple days ago. It's something I've been wanting to talk about, but a post by Don over at TKR a week or so ago got me more solidly on this track. I didn't post on that thread because I wanted to think it through and post here instead. It's a whole subject of importance to me, but it has many facets, which makes it tough to blog without a novel.

There are three parts to the concept-equation meandering through my head:

1. Personalization as a mental-technology tool of humans;


2. Psychological response and constant re-adjustment to viewing; and


3. Using A to deal with B.

(I should note that previous to my last decade spent obsessing about Remote Viewing, for a decade prior I was instead obsessing about Hypnosis (and a few other minor things, like graphoanalysis, NLP, etc.). So I have some degree of "intentional design of mental models" as a background.)

Personalization.

As a follow-on to The Personal Universe: I think humans interact most effectively with anything else via the framework of identity and "a personal relationship." I think when this is strong, humans do very well with any subject in question, and the more it dissolves into broad generics----where it's nothing personal, where it's not so much 'a relationship' as 'a philosophy'----the less internal leverage humans seem to have. Whether in shamanic training, archetypal psychology, visualizations to fight cancer etc., the application doesn't matter. From formal research to layman's arts, humans have found repeatedly that deliberately personalizing a "relationship" with a given concept, energy, situation, etc. is one of the most effective ways for us to interact with, and change, things... both inside us and outside us (since, as zen philosopher Alan Watts noted, there isn't really a difference).

Until we are able to establish a relationship----the basic upon which human experience seems to rest----we are merely observers. We can watch the tragic scenery of our lives go by, and hope that merely changing the after-effect of our "reactions" will somehow make things better. Once we have a relationship with a given energy, situation, identity, etc., we are capable of interacting with it, and of causing primary-change that modifies reality from the internal blueprint itself. Jesus was quoted as having said that A house divided cannot stand, and any time I feel the sense that I am "working against myself, somehow," when my conscious and subconscious feelings don't seem to be merged, I know that I am divided against myself and it's time to seek resolution.

Crowley once called 'magick' the Art of causing change in accordance with one's Will, a definition that works for me whether I'm talking about my efforts at self-psychology or anything else. Remote Viewing is part of my studies about how to better understand, be 'aware' of, and hence make what I wish of, myself and my reality at large. Whether we interact with and create our internal and external realities isn't really an option; awareness is the only "optional" part of it.

As Crowley put it, Why should you study and practice Magick? Because you can't help doing it, and you had better do it well than badly.

Fear of Psi.

I've had several archetype meditations on the Fear of Psi. When I planned them, it was with the idea that I had no such issue at all, and that this would probably make that clear. It was more a 'basic, obligatory' thing-on-my-list-to-cover. As it turns out, they have been some of the most deep, terrifying, difficult meditations I've ever done. Someday I'm going to remember where I recorded them and put them online for others to see, just for the novelty of it.

Some people suggest that this is a base: everybody has it, every culture. I think that is a given: from the womb, and surely from birth, we are being constantly trained to "exclude information which does not conform to the consensus reality" of our parents/those around us. It's an every-minute learning. By the time we reach adulthood and consider remote viewing as a practice, there is so much repetitive self-indoctrination of what we "cannot" know and "must ignore" it's sort of amazing we do as well as we do, I think. I used to say we filter out everything that doesn't fall within the biological frequency bandwidth so hence, ghosts are invisible and psi-based data unknown. But that is untrue. Those things are within the biological bandwidth to perceive, or people wouldn't perceive them! So, it's not that we can't, it's simply that we won't.

Barriers of Exclusion

When we start remote viewing, we instantly start breaking down the barriers of 'exclusion'. Our "won't" list starts to dissolve.

These barriers are not very selective. When we start 'opening our awareness', there's all kinds of stuff we may become aware of it. It may not be in-session, or about a target. It may not be 'factual' data; it could be esoteria. It may not even be a perception, so much as a bizarre life-synchronicity that brings a "weird feeling" that only intense deja-vu can compete with. If we are sitting in session and clearly 'hear' something at the target, we're happy about that. If we're sitting in our chair and clearly 'hear' something in an environ that at least part of our mind was wandering, we think we're hearing things and we're crazy. Well which is it?

Do we think that sound is different than smell? Maybe it's all energy and we merely "locally replicate" it using our brain-mapping; maybe at core there is no difference. Sight, sound, smell, even kinesthetics, as well as emotions, thoughts, etc. Anything can arrive, at any time. If we repress that awareness, we are contradicting our efforts at RV. If we accept it, we are looking at a much greater life-learning-curve than an hour of how to write impressions on paper.

Awareness is a rushing river of fluency and once you get it started, and you open that up in yourself, it can be addictive. It starts to feed you. You start to need that greater-awareness. It starts to seem like the lesser-awareness just isn't enough. It's not enough of you. You want more of yourself, of that feeling.

But it's enough to scare the hell out of your psychology, which after spending every minute since birth very clearly staking out the acceptable boundaries of reality, is now seeing you completely renege on what it learned so well.