Red Cairo

Narnia as Meditation Music

2009-11-22T22:38:00.001-08:00

This is the online playlist I use for my archetype or aeon meditations lately. I love this soundtrack - very varied and powerful! And the last two (slow pop) songs are lovely as well, if you're not into soundtrack style music.

I should probably mention that the high quality version of this with headphones is a lot preferable to the low bitrate online playlist version, but that goes for any symphonic music.

Updating

2009-11-14T06:58:00.000-08:00

I know. I haven't posted in eons. I have been posting on myPsiche though.

I've been wandering Mundania for some time now. That's not a bad thing. I have phases, or cycles, where I really just need to 'ground'. Focus on my outside life. Sleep a lot more than my normal deprivation. And think about not-a-whole-helluva-lot as much as possible.

I feel like I am slowly but surely healing from burnout.

I hear viewing calling to me from deep inside, that part of me I only seem to touch then, calling me home. I am ignoring her siren song for now. For 'following my bliss', the process can be surprisingly un-blissful, both in experience and in side-effects. I don't know why some people can make a casual toy out of it but not me.

I've been thinking about doing a tiny website based on my past RV sessions. Not so much a here's-what-made-it-to-paper, but a here's-what-I-think now that time, feedback, etc. gave my brain "context for understanding" which in turn drops a ton more existing-info into place (see this forum post for some explanation). This would include psychic/non-RV stuff as well as RV stuff that had different results that while not what intended, still make sense to me. I can't decide. There's so much lunacy in the field and so much misunderstanding about RV that I feel like, if I do that, it might just confuse people. Maybe I should keep the term RV off it.

PJ

MARS Anomaly, Remote Viewing

2009-07-31T05:34:00.000-07:00

OK, this is the fourth and final video that TKR (via L Digges) put out for its July "Summer 2009 Remote Viewing Expo". This is based on two group-tasks ("Missions") done on the same anomaly photographed on the planet Mars and released by NASA. Really very interesting. There was a ton of good session data that couldn't make it into this video, so check out the sessions, which would be here (you'll need to log in):

http://www.dojopsi.com/tkr/rv/gallery/missions.cfm?M=1&MT=124003
http://www.dojopsi.com/tkr/rv/gallery/missions.cfm?M=1&MT=167225

This is my favorite video of the four -- I think it totally rocks.

The Philadelphia Experiment, Remote Viewing

2009-07-31T05:30:00.000-07:00

This is the third video that L Digges made related to the TKR Project. IMO the sessions for this were not necessarily stellar although they still did have some intriguing data between them. The video is pretty cool though.

The TKR Remote Viewing Vid#2: Remote Viewing for Remote Viewers

2009-07-11T03:00:00.000-07:00

This one is even cooler than the last one. Longer, more complex, and with a hip beat. YouTube below. The quality and hi-res and screenshot and credits video is: http://www.dojopsi.com/rvexpo/TKRProject/

Direct youtube link: Remote Viewing for Remote Viewers

LD did all this stuff *free*, can you believe it. It would cost as much as my Ozarks house to hire someone to make one of these for the free project. Give him some feedback on the forum thread on it, or a comment at youtube, that would be really nice.

PJ
.

The TKR Remote Viewing Vid#1: Remote Viewing Galleries

2009-07-05T01:11:00.000-07:00

This is great! TKR has a 'promotional video'. You'd have to know that this project, they are free to everyone, welcome everyone, they have no money, and the project costs me a good chunk of money to keep alive for six years now, not counting all the time I spend on building web software for it of course. This is a 'slow sweet' commercial of sorts for the Remote Viewing Galleries portion of the project.YouTube below. The better page for the quality + hi-res + screenshot + credits video is: http://www.dojopsi.com/rvexpo/RVGalleries/

Direct youtube link: Remote Viewing Galleries

Sweet and groovy. Give some feedback on the thread on it on the RV webforum, or a comment at youtube!

PJ
.

Neuro-tech, Brain-wave Entrainment, and so on

2009-06-17T18:36:00.000-07:00

I have a new blog with my best buddy where I'm talking about what I'm learning. Getting real into the "brain wave technology" stuff lately. I was into this like 15 years ago but there was almost no research and we didn't have the internet then. Now there is way better light/sound technology, 15 years of research, stuff on the web, people sharing stuff -- very cool!

http://brain-stim.blogspot.com/

PJ

Neuro-tech, Brain-wave Entrainment, and so on

Quote for the Day: Seth

2009-05-16T07:54:00.000-07:00

Data comes through to us multidimensionally, then is sifted through neural connections, where it's transformed into time- segmentation or strung-out experience. Next it flows into our probable (physical) reality (which itself changes all the 'time.'). We inherently possess separate pockets or pools of experience (biologically valid among the cells' characteristics), sidepools where information collects for processing before flowing into the 'official pool of consciousness'.[...] Using these side pockets or pools where data are still unprocessed, in our terms, you can pick up several other strands of your own consciousness 'at once,' though retention may be difficult. Explaining the experience to the normal consciousness automatically helps expand it (the normal consciousness), so that each time the process becomes easier. Until, with practice, experience and data from several areas can be held simultaneously. The difficulty then is a translation in linear terms.

Seth (via Jane Roberts)
from "The Unknown Reality", appendix

Bloodline - the movie - Jesus etc.

2009-04-22T14:14:00.001-07:00

Visit: http://www.bloodlinethemovie.com

A friend of mine was part of making a documentary on what you might call "a somewhat controversial version of issues related to Jesus the Christ."

I haven't seen it yet, but I know they were very serious about it and anybody interested in such things would probably like it.

The trailer is here: http://www.bloodline-themovie.com/videoDL/Bloodline_Theatrical_Trailer.mov

PJ

Meditations for Remote Viewing: Ideas?

2009-04-19T23:59:00.000-07:00

I'm mapping out a 'summer meditation list' here. Having just spent six months on the hardest archetype meditation I've ever done--which took six sessions and that long to 'get around to' finally working through--I'm feeling rather enthusiastic now about getting back on track with more regular meditations. Among the other zillion areas I focus on, this time I want Remote Viewing to be firmly on the meditation map.

I thought it might be interesting to address each of the major 'problems' that can happen in/with/to a remote viewing datasession. In other words, to see if meditating on those points might bring anything from healing to insight about it. One thing is sure, it can't hurt; nothing else solves session problems which are unpredictable. (If they were predictable, you could prevent them!)

So I'm trying to make a list of each key aspect, crux, area of RV that I should put on the list. I'm glad for any suggestions.

Simple list of 'potential issues in RV sessions' that I have so far:

Inaccurate data point (perceived clearly but does not match target) (problem in raw-data and/or 'noise')

Accurate data points which are perceived inaccurately or incompletely (problem in processing data)

Accurate data points, perceived accurately, but communicated inaccurately or incompletely (problem in communicating data)

Irrelevent data which are strongly perceived (problem could be a few areas, who knows)

Important data which are not perceived (problem could be a few areas, who knows)

Good session on what is obviously a different target (problem in target acquisition)

Inability to make clear contact/ get sufficient or specific data (problem could be a few areas)

What am I missing? Email me or reply here as a comment. I'd like to try and work out some fairly quick and simple visualizations to approach each of these areas, and then work on applying any of them relevent after each session. Just to see if it's helpful at all. I've always said that 'psychological integration exercises' and other "internal efforts" were important to RV but so far I don't have many of them. I'd like to work out a few and see if any pan out as worthwhile.

PJ

Vampires as Eye Candy - Edward aka Rob Pattinson

2009-03-28T22:51:00.000-07:00

Ok, any woman into the paranormal who hasn't drooled a little over Rob Pattinson in the movie 'Twilight' has no hormones. I'm not sure he was of legal age when he was in the Harry Potter flick, but he was 22 when he made this movie so I can drool without guilt. ;-)

Here's a few screenshots from memorable scenes.

Can't forget this guy (Taylor Lautner), to be fair:

Final scene with Edward and Bella:

Archeology, Ghosts and Dreams

2008-12-28T09:41:00.000-08:00

I think I was asleep. It's been a long time since I had an experience and genuinely didn't know afterward if I had been asleep or awake or somewhere in between. This was yesterday morning I think. Or the day before.

I was standing in the dirt with a blue sky overhead. In front of me and off to the side a bit was a small and motley assortment of people who appeared to be doing archeology work. Digging something out. I walked casually toward them, feeling a tug on my memory, but unable to place it, and so shrugging it off. Most of them were sitting below the plane of the land that surrounded the location. It went down probably 15-20' before it reached the artifact area, and at that point, there was a shallow, perhaps 3-5 foot deep, squared inset area, maybe 30-40' squared (wild guess, don't remember exactly). Several steps the full width of the area led up the sides of the inset area.

Behind where most of them worked, visible in the wall of dirt they had dug back to, a couple of columns had already been dug free, and it looked like more were behind that, awaiting. I figured this meant it was some greco-roman kind of building, given the look of the columns. I turned slightly and saw that there were a few small handwritten signs around that described different areas of what they were digging out. As there were people around, tourists it seemed, I thought this might be to reduce how often they bothered the people digging with questions.

I was just about to turn and leave when I noticed the small sign pointing to "the courtyard" inset area, as it called it. I looked back at it again, that tug-of-memory bothering me, and then all the sudden it hit me: I used to live there. I knew that place.

It wasn't an inset courtyard. It had been a shallow pool.

I managed to find the 'person in charge' of the excavation, a man. I told him that he had it wrong; that there was no inset courtyard but an inset pool. I told him that it had been beautiful and clear which suggested there was a water inlet and outlet somewhere that he hadn't dug out yet, and gave some ideas on where to look. I told him how far the columnic area went back, and how over to the sides had been where we slept. And I admitted to him that I knew all this because of a dream I once had.

I remembered the dream clearly. Even conscious I remember it pretty well, though not nearly as well as I did when I was talking to the archeologist. The dream was from several years ago.

I was a young woman living with many other young women in this building. We didn't wear very much in the way of clothing, as if it was very warm. Life was very simple and filled with prayer, focused a bit on beauty (and our beauty). We slept in the same room, most of us. We had other people who also lived with us, older-elders, a few, and several men who had roles I'm not clear on now.

One day we found one of our sisters (priestesses maybe? we weren't physically related) drowned in the pool in the morning. Her body was floating face down. We were stunned and stricken and we buried her with much grief, baffled at how she had managed to drown herself in the night. It was common for us to walk about at night, and the nights were often warm, and a relaxed swim in the pool for awhile to help bring on sleep was not unusual. Nobody had ever managed to drown while doing it though, until then.

Just when we were getting over that, like a bad dream that we were starting to forget and blur with the mercy of time, another of our group was found drowned in the morning. We were terribly upset now and prayed fervently for an answer. Was it a punishment from the gods? Was it foul play? Why did we hear nothing? Was she possessed in some fashion?

Our life had not known fear until then. It seemed we'd had it so blissful, then, before the fear came. Before one young woman after another, a few weeks apart, would be found, silent and drowned, in the morning light.

Some time had passed when I found I couldn't sleep one evening. I got up, bare of feet but some jewelry and in something I'm guessing is similar to a form of toga, and I quietly walked around the building. Nobody appeared to be awake, except someone quietly moving in the pool at the front. I stepped slowly into the pool, seeing one of the elders there. Thankfully, I thought: if only we always had two of us together like this, we would know we were safe. We should not be swimming alone anymore. He and I spoke quietly for awhile, as I floated on my back toward the center. He wanted to pray with me, at least I think that was it; and I felt his gentle hand on my head; and then he pushed me under. And he held me there fully underwater until my struggles finally ceased, and then my body's spasms at last-ditch efforts at survival ceased, and he released my body, spreading my arms out so it would stay face down.

I knew I was supposed to be dead. I knew that if I just turned my head a little, I could see and feel this huge sense of light-and-longing, and I should go.

But I was still furious. It didn't feel like it had when I was dying; much paler now; yet still, at least intellectually, real. It was the moral of it, damn it all, he was the last person we would ever have suspected of such evil, all my sisters were in danger, and I was so grossly offended about it that I refused to turn into the light and leave. I vowed that I would not leave that location until I saw him discovered.

Time and reality were very odd then, and not easy to remember let alone record. But I figured out how to intensely focus my attention and intention to cause small changes in the physical world I had lived in. I gave sign after sign to my sisters to point them toward him. And when I wasn't doing that, I gave signs to him as well, and he began to tremble with fear, knowing that the gods or spirits or something were on to him. And finally they began to get the suspicion. And finally they worked it out between themselves that they would test this suspicion, with a seemingly lone innocent newer girl, and just as he began his quiet but effective drowning process, they all dashed out and into the pool to save her and the bulk of them overcame him. Their cries brought the other elders and by morning, he was remanded to authorities; he would die.

I felt grimly satisfied. And then I finally let myself pray again, which I hadn't done since I had died, perhaps somewhat in anger that my prayers while being murdered hadn't worked. And I felt more than saw the warmth and light, and I let the world fall away, and melted into it.

That was the dream I remembered, which took place at the location the archeologists were digging out.

I have no idea if this place is real or where it might be.

PJ

Cave of Gold

2008-12-15T14:07:00.000-08:00

I was quick-browsing some email archives online at the dojo info site, when I came upon a few posts I had forgotten about. I actually had once tried to find these, knowing I'd written them down, but couldn't, so I'm delighted I stumbled on them.

Odd because there is a small parallel between a dream I posted not long ago (either here or on mypsiche blog) about this golden thing 'growing' in a cave.

This dream recorded might have been the accidental beginning of my targets-as-archetypes in remote viewing. It is circa 2003 sometime.

------------------------------

Several days ago my practice target was Green Lake in the Carlsbad Caverns. I was happy with the (brief? ) session. But during it I had this subtle sense of being... vast.

As an Aspect recently suggested I try and get in contact with targets AFTER feedback--consciously--I decided to try this, to see if I could figure out what in this target caused the 'vast' feeling. So I looked at the pic and tried to tune into the cave in general.

It was a nice meditation but I didn't find anything.

I went to sleep about an hour later, and had the most amazing dream. Like many of my so-called 'spiritual' dreams, it had what I call my 'elementals of soul'--another female and 2 males, but we are also all one.

In the dream, we were looking for a cave. In the cave, was a secret; it included gold. Somehow the concept of gold was bigger than a pretty mineral though. We had to find the cave, first.

There was a bad guy and his minions, also looking, racing us. The bad guy was not evil actually, more like an adversary than enemy, he was just very aggressive. We went to where two caves, next to each other, had all his guys in there with big lights and machinery, looking for the treasure.

But if we looked 'between' the caves, and then didn't really look, only sort of peripherally, and then 'allowed' our vision to work itself out like with those 3D pictures, we could see the tiniest glimmer of something, 'between' the caves. We followed it, and we found ourself in another, hidden cave between those.

I understood that we were able to see it because we were not just looking for what was 'physical' but for a greater 'understanding'.

Inside the cave we'd found, was an amazing amount of precious stuff. But it was weirdly entwined with the cave. For example, stuff sort of like furniture, much made completely out of gold, was actually part rock, as if somehow, all this stuff had *grown out of* the cave's rock itself, not been created by man or placed there.

Then I felt The Cave. Not self-aware, but aware. Not an identity, but a consciousness. I felt vast. And I suddenly understood what I'd been looking for before I went to sleep: the sense was the cave. Maybe it was my lifelong fascination with caves, or my incredible appreciation upon feedback, who knows. But in the dream, I had that sense to the Nth degree: I was basically 'in rapport with' the consciousness of a cave. (That particular cave? Who knows? A cave, is all I know. )

It wasn't a verbal/word communication. But I understood that we could not get the gold from the cave. I had a thought, in response to this, about how the bad guys would come in and just blast it loose from the rock. The cave showed me an image of some people trying to steal the gold, and it suddenly liquifying and melting them (there were huge amounts of gold there). (I know. My dreams are like the psychic Indiana Jones, lol! )

And then finally, what the cave was trying to get across to me hit me: we had to GET the cave to GIVE us the treasure.

We had to have a sense of love and appreciation and acceptance--all combined, which equalled a feeling somewhat like 'gratitude' but more--sort of making love, appreciation proactively--and the cave, if we had this proper state of mind, would show itself to us, would "give itself to us" voluntarily.

My memory of the rest of the dream is in pieces. We had acquired ourselves a shaman to 'guide' us through the caves, for when we would find it. He was small and had really long black hair, dark skin like a native or south american. He was able to 'morph'. The other female-Aspect was ready to kiss him in thanks for his help, when he morphed into a young, beautiful woman. She refused to be taken aback, and kissed him anyway, and he (she? ) grinned; I understood that she had scored a point in his eyes for recognizing him as him and not caring about his appearance.

The only other thing I remember is a bit black, lol. A little kundalini going on I would guess. The 'bad guy', a very large brawny bully sort, we had caught him. We had no desire to harm him, but after keeping him to talk to, we were simply going to let him go-- abandon him. He had no shirt on, and it was late night and really cold outside in what seemed like a desert. I kept morphing our vehicle as an old-west wagon or a station wagon. He was standing in the back of the wagon--cold--and we were ready to leave.

The shaman, who had a rather twisted sense of humor I might add, went in young beautiful female form to the wagon, put a really big red sleeping bag in it, and crawled inside it. We knew that between his cold and his approach to women, he would crawl inside with her before long, no matter what she said. Alas for him, one of the other forms the shaman could take was a large math of writhing snakes.

LOL. Like I said, Indiana Jones dreams.

But having thought about this for a few days, something comes to mind for me. One time in... years ago, anyway, when I was thinking about RV all the time and having the most incredible dreams (like 'the frequencies of telepathy' and seeing chakras, like one that looked like a million-colors-of-gold feather fan across a woman's forehead, or things like that? ), I woke up one morning and was able to 'grok' something of my dream before it faded away, while it was still interactive with me.

It was, "...it images itself for you." And I understood at the time what it meant: that it was not me looking at a separate, unaware thing... the target, the information, WANTED to be known, wanted to show itself off in its own way.

Somehow, this reminds me of that dream, that insight. How the cave had to 'give us' the gold.

It made me think that perhaps it was a nice allegory to 'intent' in remote viewing.

PJ

Of the Gold

2008-09-16T21:52:00.000-07:00

I had a very linear deep-dream the other night. I woke up, checked email, and saw my boyfriend had sent me a link to some video he said related to dolphins. I responded in email briefly, "I just had a dream that involved a dolphin!" but I was busy getting ready for work and completely forgot about his video as well as about my dream, until just a little while ago when he reminded me. It's one of those whole story dreams, from first-person perspective. I wish I'd recorded it sooner because now I think I've forgotten some important stuff.

There are a lot of concepts and words I've forgotten so I have to use some from my mind in this-reality as I've no other way to describe them, though I think they are 'near' not 'exact' in that case. There was a WORD in the dream for 'the gold thing' but I don't remember it now so I just have to say 'of the gold'. There was a word for 'anchoring' that was a little different, but I can't remember that either. Oh well!

--------------------

It was a long time he'd been gone. Everybody had avoided talking about it, of course. They didn't want to raise doubt, or weaken faith. But our best and brightest, our most courageous warrior, had gone off to seek the Golden object that was our tribe's spiritual heritage, and he had never returned. How long could we wait, I wondered, until they said something? Would we ever as a people admit to failure? And what then?

It was our right to have the object. Our people had cared for it throughout time, until a couple decades ago. They had seized our cave-lands, the slightly monstrous people who had arrived and demonstrated easily that they were physically superior to us. They preferred to live under the ground, with their sharp teeth and vertical-pupil eyes. They killed so many of our people, and of every creature it seemed, and we had learned to fear them. We sent raiding parties on them regularly of course, catching mostly their women and children who came out of the caves most often, and we did anything we could to make their existence uncomfortable. Initially our people had hoped they would leave, with enough of that. They were tougher, but we were smarter. But eventually it just settled into habit.

The world had started to change a little. Those who knew, told the rest of our people that it was because the golden object did not have an anchor-person. That it needed one of our people to bring its energy into our world. Unfortunately the sharp-toothed intruders had killed all the people who had any idea what the object looked like or where it was to be found--some of them, while they attempted to sneak into the caves to claim it.

But something wasn't right with the world, and anybody with sense could feel it. The crops were no longer just the right amount. The animals took sick much easier. The fish in the sea came in irregular amounts and cycles. The weather had odd moments out of season. It was obvious to our elders that things were out of balance, and the press of the need for our retrieval of the golden object seemed more desperate every day.

He had volunteered, because that's the kind of young man he was. And we believed in him fully, and we painted him with our protection, and we rested, feeling sure that if anybody could bring it back to us, it would be him. He hadn't even been born when the cave-dwellers took it away, but he understood the stories, and its significance.

But it had been a very long time. And he hadn't come home.

There was finally a day of mourning. We had to assume he was not returning. The wicked cavers must have killed him, or perhaps something on the journey to or from them, although nobody could imagine what could possibly hurt so smart and valiant a man, and the legend of his near immortal skills grew as our grief for him grew. It was dark and quiet, with the sky feeling so heavy as if it were weighing down on us, when we finally talked about what should be done next.

The sad truth of the matter was that we had to have the object. If every one of our people had to die one at a time over the next century to get it, the fate of our world rested in our hands. The balance of everything was clearly skewed and getting worse. It was frankly hard to imagine having the slightest enthusiasm for anybody else's success, given our best had apparently failed. But something had to be done.

So I volunteered. I didn't want to. I didn't want to die, I didn't want to go to the caves. I had no idea what I was looking for or if I would even know when I found it. I only knew that it had to be done, and someone had to do it. It felt appropriate, if depressing, that I would be the one. I had no more husband, no more children. The cave people had been the cause of that. It made no sense to send a warrior or hunter, a mother, when I had no value to the tribe that could not be taken over by someone else. I felt a sense of fatalism, inevitability even.

With more sadness than hope, I was prepared for the journey, which would take many days. We had to live out of sight of them of course, or risk extinction. We had gradually moved farther from the caves. It would take 5-7 days and nights of walking to reach them.

{I lost a piece of the dream here, that I had previously. It involved how I ended up inside the cave as the prisoner of the cave people.}

They told me that the man of my tribe had been there. They had tortured him, mildly not severely, to tell them where the object was. They felt that he had found it, in the labrinth of one area of the caves below, but that he had not told them. But he wouldn't give up the secret to them so they could find it themselves. They felt sure, given how many of our most important people had died for it, that it had some great power and they wanted it. He escaped.

{I wondered why he hadn't come home. Now looking back on the dream, intuition tells me that he felt if he did, it would bring their people upon our tribe, searching for the object.}

They told me that I was going to go into the deeper caves and look around and I had better find it. They had been unable to, but I think they suspected we had some tribal secret that would tell us where to look. Several of them roughly pushed me down there, and as we were walking into one of the smaller caves behind a large one, they were giving me instructions, and I stopped in awe.

I had found it. I knew it with every molecule of my body that recognized it, and felt as if it recognized me. It was about 12-18" across, at least a couple inches thick if not more, a perfectly round torus (donut-shape) and inside that, a perfectly round sphere. It seemed like it was made of gold light, and yet it was more solid or tangible as well. It was on the ground over at the side and I had the impression it had literally GROWN there, as if it were part of the earth itself, like some kind of cosmic mushroom.

The people around me obviously didn't see it. It was glowing gold and made every part of my body feel a tiny buzzing, but they were oblivious. I felt that they were not equipped to see it obviously, if they didn't, and I felt this only confirmed my belief that they were less spiritual than us, and that my people were the rightful keepers of this holiness. I was not about to tell them where or what it was, so the moment I realized they didn't see it, I continued tentatively walking around in the near-darkness, stumbling now and then, even though since I saw the object I had begun to feel a heightened awareness of everything, including the floor and walls and shape of the caves.

Finally they talked among themselves, gave me a torch, and told me to continue looking on my own. The caves down here were not that extensive, and if it was here, it had to be somewhere fairly close. They implied that if I came to them without having it, it would be the end of me, and they left.

I went back to the small room that had the golden object. By this time it felt like the tiniest elements of my body had magnetically aligned themselves to it or something. I felt like it called to every fiber of my being. I approached it in awe and reverence, and kneeled down beside it, and then slowly reached out and touched it.

I felt the change rush through my body, and suddenly I was 'aware' in a way I had never been before. I felt aware of the cave, of every cave, of the mountains and the depths, of the valleys and the waters and the entire sphere of which our people knew only a miniscule part, I suddenly understood. And I understood something else, which I know knew our people had gotten wrong:

This was not something that was ever 'in possession' of a person. We had behaved as if it were an object that we would take from one place to another. But it was an integral part of the cave itself, 'grown' into the cave. It could never be moved. And although an elder had said the words that it needed an anchor, one of our people, to bring its energy into our world, I didn't think any of us had understood just how literal this was: I was the anchor now. I felt him then, our man of courage who had come before me; he had found it. I felt many people, as if stretching back in a line into the reverse of eternity, all those who had been the anchors for this energy as I was now. And I sensed clearly that it needed one person per generation. We only needed someone to touch it, once every 15 years or so.

I sat down fully and pondered what I should do. I felt that I needed to get out of the caves alive. The energy I now carried needed to 'connect' with the larger world. I wondered how I could do this? And then I had an intuition. The leader of their people who had briefly talked with me, I rewound the scene in my head. Now, with the benefit of the energy, I heard many things I had not heard before, in his voice, things impossible to have heard, but which now seemed so obvious. Such as weariness. He was fed up with the unpredictable, occasional attacks my people made on his, all over the object. He was even willing to lose the object, whatever it might be, if it would just stop the harassment. I smiled in the golden glow of the object; I had a plan!

I went to the top and demanded to speak to the leader. I refused to speak to anybody else, no matter how roughly they treated me, insisting on the leader. When finally they took me to him, I told him: look, it is not here. If it WERE here, obviously, we would have found it by now. We must have misunderstood the elders who said it was, and since they died in the early battles of your days here, we had no way to learn otherwise until now. My people will not stop the sly attacks as long as they think their most-holy object is here and you are keeping it from them. But I will make you a deal. First, I am willing to go and tell my people, and make them believe, that it is not here. This will stop the attacks immediately. Second, if you agree that once per 12 years, you will let two of my people in to search the caves -- alone -- for a part-day span of time, to verify and reaffirm for each generation that the object is not here, so this will never be doubted, then you will not have to worry about our people annoying you again. It is a treaty of sorts.

He was relieved, although he growled and hissed like an animal as if he were not. As I expected, he then agreed.

They gave me my sharpened stick, which I used as staff and spear, and what few supplies I had arrived with, and I set off on the many-days journey for home.

I was going to have to find some kind of food. I hiked around toward the big water that reached farther than I could see, although I knew that there was an end to it somewhere, and a couple of the men of our tribe had been to the other side. I had the interesting sense inside myself that I could almost feel the life inside the water inside my own body, the larger and smaller things, the greater and lesser awareness of the different creature-types. I found that fascinating. I could feel something large and of powerful awareness very near to me and coming closer, and I leaned over the edge of the water and peered into the depths.

A dolphin came to the surface.

Hello, human of-the-gold, it said.

You can talk?! I exclaimed, only to realize I had heard it, and done so, only inside my head.

All creatures will recognize you, he pointed out. You anchor the gold. You are of the spirit of the Mother, he added, and I understood he meant, the larger consciousness that was our entire world.

I realized two things, suddenly: first, that I was going to meet one of nearly every life form, because they would be seeking me out to make contact, as their way of connecting to the energy of the gold; and that I was required to do this, in order to bring balance to my world.

Second, that this dolphin was at least as sentient as my own people, and our assumption that they were rather bright animals was a tremendous mistake.

I was looking down at the dolphin, still in some astonishment, when I suddenly woke up.

PJ

Physics Dreams - the M

2008-09-09T19:42:00.000-07:00

I was reading a post on a friend's blog and it reminded me of one of the cooler old tech dreams. I'm actually writing part of this dream into a novel funny enough, or a small facet of it anyway. This is one of the dreams that are ridiculously linear and detailed -- and seem much more like "sitting in on another life" than just 'a dream'.

~~

I was 'an aspect of' a man. Rather like The Four and how we work in multiple lives. I was sort-of him, but also separate. The man was an engineer but in a very advanced way, and he was an inventor.

He had invented this technology that was very cool. Basically what it did is, it 'felt out' all the 'contiguous space' of a given area at the atomic or molecular level. You could 'set' the tool to a max area and to 'find the boundaries' kind of like graphics programs do. This was the first thing it did; it could measure and then create (with an interface to a computer) a perfect 'map' of the exact 'space' inside any open object or structure.

In the example he/we gave to someone, he used the motor home that he actually lived in to demonstrate. It created a map of "the atomic space" of everything that was not "solid" (to a certain degree I don't understand now) inside the motor home. The point of the boundaries and map-borders elements was so that it didn't just go through the openings where every door closed for example, and try to map the whole parking lot, but would 'understand' that the doors/windows/floors were meant to be 'boundaries'. It would seal the boundaries if set for that.

The second thing this technology did was, and this related to its atomic or molecular measure somehow, it could project -- literally distribute, as-energy yet it was actually solid when it formed -- any (or at least many) molecular signatures. By which I mean, let's say that copper is a certain kind of molecule(s). It could 'project' copper into any 'shape' you wanted -- including into the INSIDE of things which were not open. How it did this I'm not sure. It did not actually have copper inside it. It was like it just had information on the 'signature' of copper and could project that 'in energy form'. But when the energy form was projected it manifested as the literal thing. Almost zero-point energy I guess, something from seemingly nothing.

He had sold this technology to a government contractor company that was really excited about it. They were using it to project a 'coating' into the inside of these things sort of like large ball bearings that were going to be used in a new space travel technology, as well as some military applications. His tech allowed an absolute 'coating' on the inside or outside of anything, literally so not even a molecule was uncoated (and so you could even coat something as thinly as 1-molecule-deep). I had the feeling that somehow in the ball bearing things, it actually related to a coolant-sealant use.

He was a brilliant and creative man, but a little odd and very independent and a little bit paranoid. He didn't trust the people who bought the tech for their various physics and engineering uses and he chose to live alone in his traveling motor home and work on his ideas and inventions, even though he was offered many times a full lab and staff and so forth.

The device was a few feet wide and tall. It was white, and shaped like a large "M". Except the middle was equal with the legs. /\/\ shape basically. And when he used it, he held it turned vertically and by the bottom/middle. As if it were a two-point gun, one higher one lower, where the knees or 'top' of the M became the projection-points.

He discovered when mapping human bodies (often without people's knowledge, pointing at people in parks with his device), that oddly enough, the younger the person, the more 'cohesive' their energy appeared to be (like their particles). After some experimenting with plants, he/we discovered that the combined technology of the two things it could already do, actually resulted in a third really amazing and frankly offbeat application for it.

The simplified way to say this is that it was able to 'map' all the (atoms, I think, it could be molecules but it felt like atoms at the time) in a given shape, and then map the SPACE between them (that's why I think it was molecules--atoms seems too small for that to be possible!). It was just a small variant on what it already did. That was the first half; that it mapped a given thing and its space. That was how he found that the older someone got, the more their energy seemed to wander and expand and get looser.

And then using the second thing the tech did, it would "reduce the space" between all the particles so that atomically, the structure was much more "coherent and succinct." Weirdly, this did NOT actually change the outer size, shape, or weight of a thing -- at all. It seemed exactly the same. But it DID seem to have a significant health improvement on plants. Which led to animals, and then bigger animals. Everything seemed to feel vastly better after this had been done. They were more active, seemed younger and brighter.

He realized that he could free himself from dependency on the government-related customers that he kind of feared, if he could sell this to the commercial market. He finally tried the tech on a few dying people, who were hugely improved, and then finally tried it on himself, and he couldn't believe how great it was. He felt 10 or more years younger, more energetic, brighter mentally, everything. After thinking about it, he literally believed that it made people younger in some fashion.

He went to a few celebrities that he had met incidentally in previous times and told them about what he had. He used it on himself to demonstrate, and sometimes on an animal as well. A few of them were willing to try it, and he had the feeling mostly because, since they could not SEE anything happening (I mean there were no bolts of lightning or anything!) they probably underestimated just how drastic a physical effect the tech was capable of.

But once they had tried it, they were agog, and nearly religious about promoting the tech to all their friends--in a world where youth and energy are the big things, he had something that actually seemed to improve health while having better effects than any drug and was almost a sort of 'youth' tech. He started making a whole lot of money, despite it was illegal and not official, selling treatments with this tech to people with a lot of money to spend on it.

When I translated this it came through with a lot of "graphics" symbology, but I think he actually had some himself. For example he referred to this process he used on the body as "resampling". And much like when you take a slightly fuzzy image and resample it a bit smaller in an image program, it actually improved the clarity of the borders and lines and so forth, and his ability to 'find the boundaries' of various things with the tech seemed to help that.

One day though, he realized something was wrong. He could feel it in his body, after he had given a demonstration to someone. He went back to his RV and used the device to 'read' his body and was staring at it on something a lot like a laptop. He was thinking that he was going to die. He had just done this way, way too often on himself, as part of constant demonstrations, although he wondered to himself if maybe he was kind of avoiding facing the fact that it felt good so he had taken to doing it so often "for good reasons"--but maybe, in truth, almost as a drug. He pondered the look of the details on his scan, zooming in and looking in particular at his arteries and organs. He could feel something profoundly wrong, and he could sort-of see it in the scan.

He had been resampled too much. There is a certain degree of this where eventually you start losing quality instead of gaining it, at least in his application. Maybe, he thought, there is such a thing as too LITTLE space between the particles. But he didn't think that was it, given how little newborns, whether human or animal, had. It actually seemed more like an abstract idea to him, as if his heart had been resampled so many times that it had begun to forget that it was a heart, and although it had taken the 'shape' of a heart, and it was all the right materials, that some kind of body-integrity, some kind of potential individual-intelligence of the various body parts, was being lost. As if you were altering a person's identity a little bit every time you did this--but on the body level--until eventually the body didn't know who, or in this case what, it was anymore.

He could feel that he was dying. It was slow. But he could feel it. He felt an odd sense of fatalism about it, as if the effect on his body was so profound that his body had already made peace with his mind about it, and he knew it was already so; it was just a matter of time. Minutes. Hours. Days, maybe. But not long.

He drove to an area. Sent a message to someone who could find him. Wrote up his results and conclusions in his notes so that the lesson wouldn't be learned for nothing. He laid out on the bed in his motor home and set the device to resample him one more time.

He joined me in watching his body from several feet away. We understood that his body was no longer alive. It was perfect. It looked in every way as if he were the picture of health in fact. No medical authority would be able to figure out why he died. It was if he simply 'did'. They would be forced to rule heart failure merely because obviously it stopped, but there would be no sign of why.

He thought it had been an interesting life, but it was time to go.

And then I woke up.

Those long, linear, detailed dreams always move me deeply for some reason.

PJ

Biogram Theory

2008-09-04T23:00:00.000-07:00

I'd like to talk about Biogram Theory a bit, because I'm emailing someone with a reference to it. So I'm putting it here instead of in email, so I can refer to it in the future. This is a theory, although it has seen some testing, and I've seen layman evidence -- dramatic results in myself and others using this as a model. I'm not going to put in the 1001 caveats a 'theory' requires as it's hard to explain it that way.

----------------------

In Biogram, the theory (biochemically testable) is that emotion is biochemical. It is literally the language/words of the body (bio - gram). When you feel happy, even your elbow and heart feel it -- and they feel when you are sad. Biochemical brings our external reality experience into the internal body.

This biochemical that is the chemical form of emotion, goes into the bloodstream and is 'vented' by the actions of the person -- whether it's laughing, violence, crying, a big sigh, whatever. It can also be vented by 'general' cathartic things such as exercise or laughter.

When the emotion is incompletely vented (common in our society, for a long list of combined reasons) it stores under the myelin sheath of the nerves. It stores 'for later', as a survival instinct (too much emotion freezes us. The tiger eats us while we're immobilized with fear, or the enemy or predator gets us while we're overcome with grief over losing a tribe/family member).

The body naturally then 'vents' the biochem in dreams (children and nightmares, work stress and venting dreams).

If it can't get rid of it in dreams (too much, too much other chem, other issues), it will attempt to subconsciously bring about events/thoughts/situations which will actually focus us on that specific thing. In a perfect world this is great. It helps us face it, deal with and release it. But in reality this often leads only to more storage of the same type of chem for the same reason, instead.

The psychology is mapped to the body ("psychocartoggraphy"). When we focus on a given issue/topic/etc., literally our nervous system is 'stimulated' in that tiny (very tiny!) part of the body. Whatever biochem may actually be sitting there is 'invoked' and begins to release into the bloodstream for venting. (So the same circumstance that frustrates you repeatedly, stores biochem, and every time you tune into it, you are tuning into a "larger cache" of stored biochem. Eventually, the tiniest thing happens and you completely freak out about it, vastly angrier/etc. than the individual situation calls for. This is because you're not really dealing with that individual situation. Thanks to the body and incompletely vented biochem, you are literally dealing with a whole lot of that situation at once.)

If the body is still unable to vent it (for the same reasons we store too much in the first place), then it just keeps collecting. Being a biochemical, it has a shelf life; eventually it rots. This basically creates a cache of rotting biochemical that is right against the nerve. When the body 'tunes into that' it is literally a form of pain at the cellular/molecular level. So the body, which is part of the mind, starts redirecting us. It doesn't want to tune into that because it hurts. So when incoming information or focus aims there, it slightly "shifts" our "interpretation" just the smallest bit--so now the body is actually 'looking' just 'near' that area, not directly in it. As more biochem stores, more rots, and the collection grows larger, this psychological side-effect becomes more obvious: people are in "denial" (this is physical, not just mental!), and people "twist information coming in" (again it's physical, not just mental).

If this continues unabated, a few things happen.

The first is that a person can develop literally an "acid rage" -- this is literal, physical, not just metaphorical -- about a given topic. They usually can't tune into it, but IF they can (or when it's unavoidable), then they are almost chronically 'dripping' this 'acid rage' on every level. It pollutes their relationships, their humor, their happiness. You might as well think of this as having a drip-IV stuck in you that is chronically dripping rotting, acidic biochemical into your bloodstream, because that's exactly what's happening. These people are miserably unhappy and their entire reality is colored by the issues that the biochem is related to. Until they can get away from the situation which is chronically contributing yet-more biochem to the storage, until they have a sufficient amount of time to 'vent' that biochemical through chronic rage, dreams and nightmares, etc. while no more is adding to it obviously, they are not going to get healthy. Generally this is going to lead to murder or suicide or both in the end, whether by violence or disease.

The second is that rotting biochemical, collecting and growing, has a side-effect on the nervous system. The nervous system is the brain. It is the brain's way of looking into the body, and it keeps the body clean in that area in part based on information the nerve is providing it. When the nerve is coated with mud--let alone a gradually acidic mud--it can't report on anything. The body can't "clean" itself in that area--which includes venting that biochemical--if it can't SEE it and/or is avoiding it. Now imagine you've got 'rotting biochemical' sitting in a small part of the body which is accumulating toxins that are not getting vented. Eventually this can turn cancerous, or have other seriously negative health consequences.

The MD/Psych who came up with Biogram Theory (Richard Johnson) believed that you could see all this happening based on the symptoms of the body. In other words, that certain kinds of emotions, and emotions about certain topics, could be tracked to a given part of the body--and this was surprisingly consistent from person to person, as if the biological map of a human body was just as much a map of the mind.

He used a combination of hypnosis, biofeedback, and dream therapy to work on 'clearing' this. He had a lot of visualizations which if you did, were astonishingly effective -- it was obvious that simply the visualization was causing chemical changes in your body. I ran into this stuff and studied with him prior to encountering archetype meditations. He had some stunning results with physical problems (such as carpal tunnel and trauma) I saw in patients. I had some pretty amazing results myself, though I had nothing as obvious as disease or pathology to deal with, but I had plenty of experimenting I did with biofeedback and hypnosis in this model to think there's something serious to it.

I think archmeds are really just another direction of approaching this same thing. It's an internal, visualization format using the subconscious via Inner Guide, to deal with these physical things.

I have seriously wondered if even 'past life' memory might 'imprint' on the human body in a way that stores more than just this-life in it. The things that brought this idea are like: in Rolfing -- deep tissue massage which can be painful -- people are said to sometimes have spontaneous past-life memories. That sounds like something being released to me. Holotropic breathwork is said to bring on a variety of experience some maybe relating to that. Again this sounds like something in the body being released to me.

Scientology has a process called 'tracking', related to/part of (I think) 'auditing'. They believe that energy stores in the etheric-body; they call this 'engrams'. They use a coarse, rather oddly simplistic form of biofeedback tech they call an e-meter (probably because that's what they had 'back then' and it got established as doctrine so nobody bothered upgrading the tech!), and a person doing questioning, to work on this, but for tracking, the auditor is basically laying their hand gently on a part of the focus person's body and asking a question.

The point here seems to be (I am not a scientologist, so I am guessing; I knew a woman I studied alongside briefly who studied with Ron Hubbard in the old days before it became the kind of cult it seems to be now, who taught me a minor amount about it), that when the focus person has the hand laid on them and the question asked, it kind of causes them to "focus through" that part of their body -- through the energy in that part of the body, some of which may be 'sparked by' the question or process. The combination of these techs is believed to lead to "clearing" these "energy blocks" in the body.

I seriously think that Biogram is a medically-based approach to what amounts to the same thing. And that you could probably remove all the ancient-alien crap from Scientology (I don't care whether it's true or not, I just don't think it relates much to this), and re-consider the auditing and particularly tracking tech in light of potentially causing people to spontaneously tune into and release/vent stored biochemical. Which might be, in some cases, stored not by 'this' life of experience, but more something 'imprinted on' the physical body via the etheric body (obviously this is only theory). The theory works whether or not this last part is true.

Now, the best way for an individual to work on this on their own is through self-hypnosis, self-suggested dreams, and simple biofeedback. Simple meaning like EDR (Epidermal Response, previously and still sometimes called GSR, for Galvanic Skin Response). There are a couple ways you can approach it.

1. General energy: Rig yourself up and tell yourself out loud, "I'm going to go through my body, and when I get to a part where a lot of stored biochemical needs venting, I want you to make the meter reading/sound go up to alert me." Then you start anywhere and you focus on/in a part of your body -- a small part, and really "feel" that part of your body while doing this -- and then you just move through the body. When you hit a place that reacts, you talk out loud to yourself and say, "OK now body, I want you to release that biochemical into the waste disposal system of the body. Vent it all out. Thanks." Go back through that area several times with this kind of instruction, until you no longer get the response on the biofeedback meter.

2. Specific energy: do exactly like #1 except tell your body "...when I get to a part of the body where I am storing biochemical relates to issue XYZ..." instead. When I did this experimentally, it was fascinating, as my buddies and I were all experimenting. I would often write down the part of my body that reacted to a given topic, and come to find out my buddies had the same reaction (it varied in degree by person) to the same topic in the same part of the body. Which rather indirectly validated the doc's theory about the body being a map of the mind and fairly consistent from person to person. Probably the most severe example of this was the time when we all reacted -- me extremely, all but one of the rest mildly -- to 'homosexuality' when we hit 'the left ankle'. The irony was the one other person who reacted wildly to this actually had his resistance to this as the major issue in his life--and he had an incurable tiny cancer in his ankle at that spot. Helluva coincidence.

It's worth considering that in the body, no matter what the physical problems, everything comes down to the cellular and then molecular level. So, if there is any approach that can affect the body at that level, then there is no body issue that should not be able to be approached from this direction. It's just a matter of being creative enough to figure out how.

I'll post on myPsiche blog shortly the "Cleaning Center" meditations I made up eons ago when I was doing a lot of energy work and archetype meditations. My experience with these leads me to believe that they work; like archetype work and sometimes moreso, you can really feel this stuff physically at times.

Anyway, that is Biogram in a nutshell. It is vastly simplified, to say the least, but I think I got the framework of it decently.

Birthday Bedroom

2008-08-23T17:56:00.000-07:00

OK maybe this is a little materialist, but if you knew what grunge I've been living in and for how long you'd see why I'm fairly excited about my decision to find a way to get myself a decent bedroom for my birthday in a few weeks.

I'm getting this quilt. I love the colors, and the velvet/satin mix. The patterns could be better or more random personally, but I really like it for the colors and texture. It's at seventhavenue.com for $70 (pillow shams are like $17ea or something). My bedroom is a small dark grungy pit and I think it's long past time I feng shui'd it into something more like I want to live in.

And a simple wall sconce fixture and a lovely little stained glass shade that goes with the colors of the quilt (these from homedecorators.com).

That leaves only some primer and wallpaint, a couple pans, rollers and brushes and dropcloth and extender, and the gumption to get off my ass and paint my room. When I moved in 8 years ago the walls were so grungy it was like a bad welfare tenament. Needless to say, 8 years and cats and kids have not improved anything.

I like the rest of what's in my room but it's never been in a good setting. I really want to move stuff around though--must be a mood thing! The really fun part is moving my bed. I tried to move it the other day. I got a lovely bruise and it didn't budge a single millimeter. It is a queen size captain's bunk and it weighs a ton. (It is about as high as my waist with the mattress on.) I think I'm going to have to take out every drawer, take off the mattress which is really heavy on its own, and then see if I can move it. If my housekeeping help comes tomorrow I'll have her move the drawers and we'll try it. Otherwise it'll wait a bit. I suppose worst case, my bed will simply not move! But I moved the fridge in the kitchen, all so I could put my bed against that shared wall with it gone (wouldn't sleep in the electrical field).

My bedroom is really small (like 11x11 I think), it's the smallest room in the house. I have a queen captain's bunk (so, blessedly, no chest of drawers), from ultimatebed.com. Two layers of 3 drawers per side (12 big drawers total). (But that's all-no tables, headboard, etc.).

I have a small simple shaker slant-desk with a long padded bench. There's other stuff but that's all I should 'need', aside from my shoji lamp, fan/trash/laundry/scale, and guitar.

If I could get the bed to the other wall, the small amount of space below will be on the side of the room where the door opens, which will make the space much more useable, and make it much easier to get to the desk. I love my desk. It is my favorite piece of furniture aside from my shoji. All the wood in the room is maple-honey except the bench (which is dark cherry). If there were a little more LIGHT and COLOR in the room I think it would be really pretty! I spend my whole life in my room--much of my work is done sitting on my bed with my laptop, same for coding and internet. My room *ought* to be a really great place to be if it's that big an environmental thing.

Meanwhile--total topic change here--ever since the pyramid/Gaia meditation I did (see my Psiche blog), I've felt... slightly different. Hard to be specific here because that happened just as I was starting the hormonal monthly cycle of Maternal Blessedness (...) so that means physical issues (cramps, some nausea, bloating) and some mental issues (I get into the no-sleep, won't-eat, rather-manic coding phase) and frankly in the midst of all that junk it's a little hard to pull out what might be different because of a meditation. But I feel I am. And Ry has said several times all week, "You are really acting weird," and assured me last night that I am just very odd the last week. Not in a bad way, in a way that makes her giggle, but who knows. Anyway, so I don't know if the sense of a need to shift and brighten and color and rearrange my room, I mean more than usual (now the feeling is overwhelming) is in part related to that, or not.

I just know that I was idly browsing in boredom through a magazine and the minute I saw the pic of the quilt I just felt like I HAD to do that, just 'had to'. Not just an intellectual thing but a really sense of being driven-by-the-body to have those colors around me etc. (Interesting because usually it is yellow and gold -- energy colors -- that I crave. But I might add that somewhere, I have a velvet soft pirate's cap in some print that looks a lot like an abstract version of that quilt--I bought the cap when I was like 18--so apparently I like the color scheme and haven't changed much!)

Meanwhile... I've been coding my ass off on Taskerbot for days and days until my brain is fried. I found some bizarre bug in one of the tasking modules that really made me mad, because it's rare and occasional and I can't figure it out. So I'm just redoing the entire form/script and doing it differently this time, as a different kind of fix. But everything is SO much work and SO time consuming, gods. And I'm working on planning Dr. Tart's upcoming PhP blog he wants to start, which I need to have together in a week or so, so he can work toward having it ready for his next book when it publishes. I wish I had more hours in a day!

PJ

Reich and Timewave Zero

2008-08-22T18:21:00.000-07:00

I just had this totally left-field "AHA!" moment realization.

Many know Reich, who is most famous for his 'Orgone' energy stuff I suppose, though he was also quite brilliant as an analyst.

His book 'The Nature of the Orgasm' is very interesting. Take off the sexual component we assign to that for a minute. Basically he suggests that if you study the world, every single thing has 'cycles'. It builds up, and builds up, energetically, until it reaches some crescendo, peaks, and then falls back down again. From ocean tides to herd populations, there is pretty much nothing I can think of in our world, from microscopic biology to macroscopic sociology, where this pattern does not exist.

Timewave Zero is the McKenna brothers' mathematic computer modeling of their projected "novelty" ('change') for the human race/earth/whatever (sorry to be unclear but I didn't read the whole book and that was eons ago). Basically, based on their models, they projected that the "degree of novelty" was going to get more and more exponentially extreme, until at the very end it pretty much went off the charts into a sort of maximum. Curiously, their timeframe for this was something like December 21, 2012, at 5:59:59 AM (and some sub-seconds). (I forget what timezone that is. Zulu maybe? Buy the book.)

Now many people might recognize that as the infamous "Year of Ending" of the Mayan calendar.

I just realized: it's an orgasm. It's a cycle. TIME has the SAME cycles that everything else does.

I know that's a very weird thought. But then I'm kinda weird.

PJ

P.S. This hit me just between pondering whether CFPARAM would validate form input data for team-based tasking better than dynamic IF statements or in-form javascript, and wondering whether just putting in my default datetime value (12/21/2012 5:59:59 AM) would suffice and if they screw it up, just making it easy to edit. Who says that programming is not a tool of insight? ;-)

Reality in Polka-Dots

2008-08-17T16:17:00.000-07:00

If I had a brain I'd be dangerous. Seriously.

Last night I reread the previous couple posts on my psiche blog, and realized that way back in May I'd done the last archetype meditation. Bad enough it'd been that long, but I'd completely forgotten the med. I'd even forgotten getting a new IG, despite that I did a few meds with her. The level of my denial is astounding!

I went back to finish the med and had a mindblowing experience. (See Psiche for detail.) So it's a good thing that I wrote down the first meditation or I wouldn't have remembered several things that turned out to be very important.

This morning, I read the rest of the posts on the first page. In them were several other meditations that I had forgotten far more completely than the other. It was like reading something written by someone else! That's just astounding.

I'm seriously beginning to think that I must have a whole lot more denial going in my life than even I suspected. How could I forget that much stuff??

**

So I'm thinking if meditating on my problems is hard, maybe I should start meditating on just the opposite -- if my problem is 'lack of money', meditate on 'abundance' for example. Maybe then the meditation would be easier to get around to, clearer, more fun, and still have a positive result toward the basic goal.

-- Since it appears when I focus on problems, I space out the spaces of my life that have that work. Like big spots of nothingness, and then spots of somethingness. I see reality in polka-dots: little spheres of what I'm willing to deal with, surrounded by nothingness, the masses of stuff I'm not.

PJ

Remote Viewing: Frontloaded-Genre Focus-Viewing

2008-08-15T10:46:00.000-07:00

My best friends and I wax on about RV all the time. What I'd give for a transcript, given all the things we've thought of spur of the moment, that fall out of my brain when I hang up the phone. One night we were talking about focus-viewing.

I often use basketball as an analogy to remote viewing. Not because it's a good one, just because pretty much nothing is a good one so it's not much worse than any other.

In basketball, you need a lot of practice in 'live games' and that's the best thing. But really, if you want to work on layups, shooting hoops, passing, whatever, then you don't expect a person to play five 2-hour games a week and learn everything they need from that experience. You also practice specifically your layups and passing and free throws and so forth. Because without some focused-skill in those areas, your games are going to kind of suck, and there's too much "else" going on in games to know that you will personally get lots of practice on that one specific thing.

As a general norm, folks don't do a lot of that in RV until they get some experience and decide they want to focus on something and make their own target pool for it and so on.

In RV a lot of it's about learning theory and the "promptness of feedback." Now, we never get it as rapidly as actual learning theory says matters most--that is a matter of microseconds--but it's generally agreed that "the sooner, the better" for feedback. But you have to take into consideration that "30 seconds after session" is not nearly as 'soon' for most the session if it was a 2 hour session, as it would have been for a 15 minute session.

The length of a session determines the amount of experience a person has to wade through when feedback arrives. When you do a 2 hour session, there is usually so much more data, so much more experience, than when you do a 15 minute session, that when you get feedback, there is not always a clear path to comparing a clear memory of your fleeting, ultra-rapid 'impression' from two hours ago, with what turned out to be that part of the target. And the stronger experiences or any 'drive' cycles in there tend to overshadow the early or subtle things. The shorter the session, the more immediate and likely clear your recall of your experience. For the purposes of practice (vs. occasional full-out targets or applications work), short sessions serve as layup drills, to return to our basketball analogy. You want to do a brief focused activity and get immediate feedback on it, and do a lot of that.

We were talking about the "layup drills" concept. Then we were talking about "real world" stuff-- as if every decent target feedback photograph is not something in 'the real world' of course-- but stuff that is current like right-now, or even future.

I started thinking about the fact that much of that viewing, such as on news, becomes "concept" viewing. Although there can be physical data, most of the focus is more a matter of dynamics, process, situational, conceptual, contextual -- not so much "a stone castle on the cliff overlooking the sea" (to ref an archetypal sort of RV target). In other word, news (with rare 'tech' exceptions) almost never reports so much on physical things so much as events or situations, which usually either a person or a physical thing or both are involved with.

So I got to thinking, what if you could do layup drills -- focused RV practice -- on concepts?

On contextual targets, and the news is a perfect example. News stories can be nearly anything, so even if you are describing tomorrow's paper, unless it's the eve of the presidential election, and unless it's the front main page or political section, you're not really going to be able to predict what will show up there. If you increase the number of potential news sources, each with different major 'sections' of the newspaper which could be the focus, this complexity or probability grows exponentially. When you're using online news which actually can change many times a day, its even more unpredictable.

Some kind of software setup that helped a viewer with this kind of practice, by randomly choosing from one of many sources, either present-time or in the future at the viewer's whim, would be great. The target would be "what you get feedback on for this session/task" which makes it a wildcard tasking¹, even though one fully set up for feedback ahead of time. (Reason: because the top news story on any news web page could change between the time you got the task and got feedback. So your target is not 'what's there' but 'what you get as feedback'. If you couldn't get feedback until 3 days later, that would be fine too. This works perfectly well by the way, although many viewers' initial belief systems stubbornly refute it. You have to just do it for awhile to see.)

^{(1) Wildcards is a term used in futurist work, to indicate a 'low-probability but high-impact event in the future'. It's also a term used in computers, where it represents 'a variable', e.g. it could be anything. Prudence Calabrese applied the term to Remote Viewing, when the target was undefined at the point of session except as being, "Whatever you get feedback on for this session."}

You could do as much practice as you wanted, and the targets might range from abstract to technical, from crime to business, from Latino to Women's Issues to Special Reports. In short, they'd be double-blind in detail even though you are frontloaded to the "genre" of target -- in this case, "the news." (The word genre in this context can be a subject-matter, such as 'finance', or a target-source, such as 'news'.)

Now I am rather against frontloading in application settings, unless it is impossible to avoid (I'm willing to make concessions that functionality is a priority over perfection in that case, but it's still seldom good; an intermediary who can privatize the tasking is critical). But I am not against frontloading only to the degree of genre -- "the target is a building" is not frontloading, it is telling you the target, ok, people really need to consider basic logic when it comes to this subject -- for focused practice.

For example, let's say that John really wants to work on dowsing for lottery numbers, and Susan really wants to work on "situations" so she can improve her police work, and Jane really wants to work on "sounding-out" words.

These things are damn difficult in double-blind work, especially since the DB suggests you don't know the target and hence if you want to view "situations", you don't really even know that the target HAS any kind of "situation". Maybe it's a bleeping statue or something. Or maybe the situation is such a wide-scale tasking (eg Marilyn Monroe / Death / Cause) that you could fit data into anything and you don't have enough feedback to have any clear guidance.

What seems clear is that viewers could use a way to make target pools specific to a genre, that they could use for "focused-practice". One pool might have situations -- and maybe a "phrase" would be best for this, as it limits the situational elements. Or, it might have news sources -- that's a wider pool for sure but usually some degree of concepts and events (situations) are involved there, and they have the benefit of the psychological attraction to 'real-world-present' events. Maybe another pool has numbers 1-51 for John's local lottery, and Jane has a pool filled with tons of single words, each of which is a concept word or a name, that she wants to work on sounding out.

The problem is, in practical terms, that making a practice target pool is--not to be indelicate--a royal pain in the ass. I cannot tell you the hours I have spent gathering targets for practice, and that's with everything online in image format already. Let alone the hours to put copyright/copyleft info on them and make them look nice (for the TKR project) (I am not the only tasker there for the practice pool, but all the copyleft stuff, and stuff with nifty font descriptions, is mine).

And then you get into task distribution: the problem is that even if you use index cards and security envelopes, in theory the mnemonic 'memory' of the most subtle detail of a given envelope can play havoc with the 'validation of the double-blind'. I mean in your own head; I'm not worried about what others think, but about what my psychology thinks. I need the validation of the doubleblind to pound on my belief systems constantly. So for all intents and purposes, collecting targets, let alone making a physical pool, is just really, really time consuming.

So it seems like one would need a few things:
1 - A source of targets to collect that was rapid for targets in high quantity;
2 - A way to get those into a target pool rapidly and fairly easily
3 - A way to get them distributed to you randomly.

The reason for #1 is that the pool has to be a pretty good size (several hundred) if you're creating it or the AOL (analytical overlay--associations with targets you think it might be) will just kill you. (Learn vicariously from me on this.) It's like trying to play guitar on one with such bad action that your fingers are bleeding. There is simply no reason to cause yourself that much pain when the real point of the exercise was to learn a finger-picking pattern or a lead riff. It's a little like that in viewing. There's no reason to make yourself suffer. If you want to learn, you want the process to be clean as possible so you can focus on your learning, not your pain. The bigger the pool, the better.

So after some thought, and a good chunk of programming, I created two new modules in Taskerbot.

One is geared for any kind of target that uses an online URL (fixed URL) for a target source. It's called "News" and has a variety of features, but it isn't limited to the news. You could make a set/pool and fill it with links to many different websites' "picture of the day" and use that. Anything.

The other is geared for any kind of target which fits within 300 characters. Numbers; words; phrases; or brief taskings. It's called AlphaNum, and it also has a variety of features, but is not limited to numbers and letters, words, phrases; ordinary taskings (as long as you didn't need a ton of text, url, embed code, or photo -- or as long as your 'link to that' fit within 300 characters!) could be used in there too.

The idea is to make a business-type utility that makes it easy to spend most your time viewing, all of it in a nice clean protocol, and very little time out manually and laboriously making target pools. Most viewers are adult professionals. They don't have time for a big administrative component on top of having any time to view. This really limits their options, and that's too bad.

My theory is that a very small number of people are actually driven to view, or able to psychologically stay with it. By very small, I mean in terms of the larger population, nearly infintesimal. So as a result, making all the support and potential available for those viewers becomes more critically important. Because they are the only people who are going to carry remote viewing into the future.

When all the pathogen-in-a-can stories and comet-companions and You Must Use My Method Or You're Not Viewing or other crazy cultic stuff in the media and on the internet fades to a slightly humorous subnote of history, what's left are the people who are actual practitioners, and who are the only ones who can pass it on -- decently, that is -- to others. The more chance they have to improve themselves, to better understand, the better for the future of RV.

Since few folks truly have time to do a lot of administrative, protocol, set-up work and get any viewing done too, I think professional software that makes all those things as rapid and easy as possible for them, so they can spend what time they have viewing, is a big deal.

I'll talk more about the new tBot stuff on the Dojo Psi blog in the next couple of days.

PJ

Wandering Home

2008-08-15T07:24:00.000-07:00

A reader-friend pointed out that I hadn't posted on Red Cairo for so long people were going to think I'd keeled over. I have six blogs for different topics and I can't keep up with one let alone six, so... that's the way it goes. But I feel sadly remiss at not posting because this one, Red Cairo, is my most personal blog, where I talk about my dreams and weird experiences and psychic sessions and so on. You know, all the stuff that would make readers elsewhere run screaming into the night.

I've often felt I survived well in the world mostly because my weirdness was well hidden. I "pass", as people with issues such as deafness and autism call it; when you function well enough "like other people" that conveniently, they mistakenly assume you are one of them.

I've only recently revived the blog at blog.dojopsi.com and not posted much yet, but I'm finally building out more of dojo projects like Taskerbot with some more cool remote viewing tools so I'll be waxing on about that there. As opposed to anywhere else, because it bores other people to tears I imagine...

***

I was recently reading this book, "An Unlikely Prophet" by Alvin Schwartz. It's a lot like a Richard Bach book in many respects. He tells the tale, allegedly true, of meeting a genuine Tulpa -- a thought-created being. The book was basically an exploration of the concept of reality, of time, of thought-creates-reality and form. It had a lot of great one-liner quotables in it.

In the book, at one point the Tulpa refers to time as merely being "an atmosphere", saying that time was not at all consistent or the same everywhere. I don't know why, but it made me think of something I once wrote where I said people mature "in spots". It's almost as if the maturity of time also happens in "spots".

The Tulpa suggested that in the West in particular we inundate ourselves constantly with media, and most of it subconsciously was to help cement and keep consistent a specific reality and time. As if to keep anybody from slipping. "I am colored outside the lines," I once woke up thinking. As if atmosphere can be its own imprisoning little-tiny-box of reality.

***

Time, or whatever it is we're calling that, marches on. Right now all my cats are living outside for the summer. The two prettiest, friendliest have disappeared. I hope for some good reason and not the many possible bad ones. My property looks severely overgrown and I'm waiting on a hopefully new lawn guy to show up today for an estimate. Welcome to suburbia.

My seeds had a bizarre lack of germination this year. I heard that from a ton of people. That's very worrisome as all are from good companies. What would it do to the world if terminator chemicals got into organic crops? Then Monsanto would own your ability to grow backyard peas. In any case, so after spending a small fortune on seed starting stuff I ended up going out and spending another small fortune on small seedlings. Then it rained for 14 WEEKS. Good grief! I've heard of a 'wet spring' but that is unbelievable. I was expecting some neighbor to begin building an ark any minute. My backyard was a swamp. Although my garden beds are super elevated, I sink in the mud around them so don't go out there if it's really wet. By the time I went out there, the weeds were 8-12' tall in the garden beds--I am not exaggerating, some weird kind of super-tall-something!--and this tiny weed that has been a two foot patch of ground cover with tiny blue flowers the last several years in front, took over my entire front and backyard, growing OVER everything, growing UP the 8-12' tall weeks on each side of the bed, rendering the entire half a backyard into something that looked like a garden abandoned for about 50 years. I've never seen anything like it.

Then it refused to rain even slightly for a couple months. It was too late anyway. The garden was annihilated. I think I have one hardy Roma tomato plant that half-survived; my housekeeping helper filled one of my refrigerator drawer with small romas last weekend. I can hardly go out there, I just find it so demoralizing. I will have to pay another small fortune to get help in basically digging out the top foot of all the beds and replacing it with fresh soil, and doing something to deal with the "plant life" that is like a pretty oklahoma version of kudzu.

My kid has her second degree in Jr. Brown Belt now in karate and has moved to the more advanced class. She turned 12 years old yesterday. Holy cats! Hard to believe. We're celebrating this weekend though as I had no money until then. Money has really sucked for the last several months, but I just need to get off my ass and do some meditating since it's more like a symptom of my reality than anything specific.

We are homeschooling this year, a gigantic decision we are a couple weeks into so far. She will learn far more here, will not suffer the psychological disaster of our ridiculously violent, drug-ridden, sexually-oriented kids who are worse at age 11-15 than my college was, in our nowhere-midwest public school. My only gripe is that she insists on learning violin and japanese (for godssakes!) which means I have to learn them too. God forbid I should stretch my brain like that. What is she thinking. I paid a fortune for good curriculum materials in many subjects though I have some left to obtain. I've got tons of documentary edu and of course am still working on Rosetta Stone for foreign language. Bittorrent is my friend.

I'm learning to cook finally, about time. I turn 43 on September 14th... just a tad late to be learning fundamental life skills. I can't believe I'm that old. I really feel like I got to somewhere in my 20s and that was it, my 'sense of age' pretty much didn't move from there until I was about 41, when it moved up to about 30. My body certainly kept moving on, but my mind hasn't felt any older, which is just weird. Maybe it's that way for everybody. Anyway, I spent last night going through the long-simmered carcass of a turkey that I baked and then dumped in a giant stock pot, and we'll be having turkey soup with onions, carrots and celery as a result (plus I have, not counting the soup, at least a couple gallons of stock). Did I mention that's a rather disgusting job that made me feel rather... savage in some way. I've mastered briskett (how can you screw that up?) and a variety of things made with ground turkey and beef--as you see, my effort is to learn to cook with cheap meats.

I'm lowcarb, so meat is my primary food, but I can hardly afford it. Veggies are a lot more too. Cheap pure-sugar crap like noodles are ultra-cheap, but real food costs a fortune. And they wonder why diabetes gets more common by the day and is more prevalent in the poor, hmmmn.

I've lost a lot of weight, which is to say, not nearly what I need to lose, but I'm getting there. I'm not really focused on that at the moment. "Eat real food" is pretty much the thing; beyond that I don't obsess except in cycles.

I have totally sucked at weight lifting. I seem to have some emotional stuff bubble up every time I exercise enough to really work out hard that sends me away from it. I've seriously begun to wonder if, on some "creation of reality" level, this could be behind my mega weight gain much earlier in life. I've always had a problem with "shallow breathing" since childhood, but since breathing is associated with emotion and much of my childhood really sucked, I've just dismissively attributed it to that -- not wanting to 'feel' too deeply. I've heard of "Holotropic Breathwork" (a Stanislav Grof tech I think) and how it allegedly can bring massive emotional stuff to the surface for people. I don't know if lifting weight hard enough to make me breathe deeply and sweat like crazy is the same, but it is certainly sparking something in me. So it has become, much like archetype meditations, insanely difficult to "get around to" as a result.

***

Our latest music: Celtic Woman. My favorites: She Moved Thru the Faire, Last Rose of Summer - Walking in the Air, Harry's Game. But the whole disk is lovely. It has some classic covers too, like Ave Maria, Danny Boy and Enya's Orinoco Flow. Well I've also been listening to Linkin Park, Counting Crows, Avril Lavigne, but they are not nearly as cosmic. ;-)

***

I wanted to say something about remote viewing but I think I'll put that in a separate post.

PJ

Gifts and Poltergeists

2008-05-07T06:48:00.000-07:00

This is just a chatty post to catch up a bit on recent life.

It's going fairly well here in nowhere Oklahoma. It's spring, which aside from Autumn is the most glorious time of the year. It ranges from super-blue sky with super-green everything and flowering trees, to awesome thunderstorms and pouring rain.

In the spring here, everything grows. This includes the 1,029,392,877 little tree seeds that have distributed themselves all over the landscape from every tree in the neighborhood. I'm the Maple Killer: I ripped out dozens of maple tree starts from a small mulched area the other night. This is definitely Ozark territory here in the NE corner, not the plains. Oh, and that's not counting every weed that ever considered taking up residence in my landscape, especially my lawn. By the time I got my mower started, my lawn -- along with much of the city -- was a good 12-20" long in places. I say 'in places' because I don't actually have a lawn. I have some very interesting weeds which, when mowed, and slightly at a distance, give the illusion of a lawn. I'm not complaining. It's green, it grows, I mow it, what's not to love?

I managed to get all my official garden beds planted, no thanks to killing my own seedlings (never mind how, it's just too stupid). In the beds, which are 24-32" high (it's a 'standing' cinderblock garden, see some old pics here), I've got something like:

half a dozen red bell pepper
half a dozen orange bell pepper
nine green bell pepper (most of which I wait till red to pick)
nine jalapeno pepper
a couple italian peppers (sort of a cross between a bell and an anaheim)
eight cayenne peppers
(did you notice... I like peppers? I'd have more but the local selection of seedlings was pathetic.)
eight roma tomatoes
one cherry tomato
one oregano
two basil (standard)
half a dozen daikon radish (all that sprouted, from old seed)
around 10 shallot sets
around 60 garlic sets
around 200 yellow, white and red onion sets
about 25 each of normal, japanese long white, and red, scallions
and that's about all there is room for in the beds.

I plant close, 'sort of' in a square-foot-gardening style, but not THAT close... about 1.5-2' between peppers and small/determinate tomatoes.

I didn't plant anything on the arch trellising this season, because I still need to tear out the odd square little beds that DP (as my lowcarb girlfriends call him, my Ex) created, and use their cinderblocks to make permanent beds between the arches. That is down the road some... there is only so much time in life, and let me tell you, it does not take much hauling of 30# cinderblocks before your hands and fingers hurt and you're weary, and this is probably even for people in good physical shape, which I am definitely not.

I do, however, have the containers left. I had to buy an entire new spate of containers this year, as the recent ice storm that wiped out 70% of the trees in my city (including mine. They are leafing out--their shredded remains--but at some point I'll have to pay a small fortune to have them cut down and replaced, as they are trashed) also wiped out my containers, which had actually survived five years of winter outside without even a crack until then, but they literally shattered and cracked and broke all over with that freeze. These are big, 16-40 gallon (varies) size "tub" like containers you can get at dollar stores and walmart.

The rain and wind have delayed delivery, but hopefully Thursday I will get the "soilless premium potting mix" from the local soil company (they sell mulch, rock, you name it), a dump truck with a scoop is going to drop it in my driveway, then guess who gets to shovel it all into containers and wheelbarrow them around the property. I will be in slightly better shape when this is all over, that's for sure.

Last week, a friend online sent me some clothes and shoes in my size and some quality cat food. Free stuff! Awesome. My boyfriend sent me a movie ("Kama Sutra" - do you think he's trying to tell me something...?). A coworker sent me an exercise video and two cookbooks. My dad gave me a whole bunch of DVDs, me and Ry will be watching "The Golden Compass" tonight. And yesterday I got a $100 gift card from my boss. So it's been a good time for the influence of others the last week or so, for sure.

Thanks to the gift card yesterday, I was able to go to a local nursery and buy about four dozen seedlings for all the containers (from the big tubs to lots of hanging flower pots). A dozen are flowers; a dozen are herbs; a couple dozen are some more veggies. Anaheim chili pepper, mole chili pepper, hungarian wax (hot banana) pepper, couple more italian peppers, a golden tomato, cherry tomato, some more roma tomato, some more cayenne pepper. (Fresh cayenne are my fave peppers, although there are several in that class that are nearly indistinguishable from one another and they're all good.) This Friday (payday) I hope to buy whatever the last things needed for this year's garden: maybe more containers (not sure), and a bunch of hose and a good punch, a manifold and timer for the backyard, and a couple more fancy-spray nozzles for the garden hoses. From that point on, all I need is a couple scoops (dump truck full) of new cedar mulch and a LOT of incredibly hard work, and by the time Fall arrives, when it's time to tear stuff out and clean up for the winter, I'll finally be done with the stuff I should have had done by the arrival of spring, heh!

Ry had her sixth grade chorus concert last night, so we piled into the city's big-brag fully-restored landmark Coleman Theatre for it. She's so adorable it just melts my heart.

Meanwhile, my friend X is having a rather severe problem in her house. Her husband and both her children -- now 10 and 11 -- are quite psychic in the 'medium' sort of way, although her husband is a rationalist who works very hard to stay in denial of this. They began with a number of random occurrences and knocking and things like this, human-shaped shadows visible only to the three of them (X's oblivious), etc. They believed they had some kind of ghost. I told them to talk to Archangel Michael and ask for his assistance in helping someone move on, and they did. Her father died as all this was happening, which probably didn't help, except that it restored some sense of benevolence to it all.

Not long later, this amped up into Amityville territory. First stuff started moving. I've had this effect myself during my bewilderness era and I know how crazy-making it can be. A dresser fell on her daughter (a bird-boned sort) several times. (And no, this is NOT like child abuse projected or anything like that. Stuff started falling and flying all over the place regularly, all four of them reported it to me separately at times.) The knocking increased. The out-of-corner-of-eye visuals increased. Writing started appearing on the mirrors. The TV remote control constantly vanished and would appear on the ceiling fan in the kids' room, which nobody there can reach without a ladder. They could all be sitting in the living room, all is well, the cat walks out of the room, and runs back in 10 seconds later--covered in mayonnaise or something and very unhappy about it.

One time her husband got so pissed about the remote control he duct taped it and CHAINED IT so it couldn't go anywhere. The cat got coated with something again, his bottle of scotch vanished and appeared stuck in the dirt upside down and open in the backyard after having been poured everywhere, and after searching, they'd just given up looking for the vanished remote when they found it -- in the butter container in the door of the fridge. The little girl would sometimes wake up with her long hair wound up and 'hooked' on this tiny hook in the wall above her bed.

They kept taking the kids to sleep with them because they were all worried, but even when they do, the apparitions and stuff continue off and on, and her husband is often woken up by someone poking him HARD -- physically -- on the shoulder, even though he makes sure and nobody is touching him that he can SEE, yet it's 100% physical and once he felt a whole hand slide down his arm. (Grossed him out.)

They called the Oklahoma branch of some kind of ghost like society that has a TV show. Useless. These people had a huge stack of paperwork that took X a really long time to fill out. They show up, they set up a camera for ONE HOUR, and they leave--just leaving all the paperwork they worked so hard to prepare. X asked if there was someone they knew who could clear houses of this kind of thing and they only said, not in this region. And this was all just really annoying, frustrating, aside from the occasional things that seemed like a potential threat to the kids, until recently when

The little girl can see and hear a spirit there. She says it says that her name is Sabrina and she died in a fire. She heard another who said her name was Debra, and she was several generations ahead of Sabrina. After the prayers with Michael, Debra went away. Meanwhile, they've now progressed to some impressive EVP (electronic voice phenomenon). Sometimes on the telephone, AFTER someone hangs up, there is a voice. Allegedly there is a spirit named Tim, an angry man who says he set the fire that killed Sabrina. Debra says that she is trying to help Sabrina 'go to the light' but Tim doesn't want to let her go. Sometimes Sabrina quits talking and when asked why says that "he will hurt her" and then there's sounds like a hard slap and her crying out. Meanwhile, they were all trying to keep this quiet -- except for hoping the ghost hunter people might have some clue -- because they don't want anybody to think they are crazy, obviously, and if you tell someone that a small dresser threw itself on your kid, they're probably going to think it's child abuse and that'd be a total nightmare. So they've been suffering in silence about all this for awhile.

Recently, they got some third party verification. The little girl had been on the telephone with a little girl who lives near me. When her little girl hung up, a voice came on the line, and the other little girl stayed on as a result. She gave the phone to her mother, who actually heard it. It was 'Tim' and he was foully cursing and threatening and saying, I can't recall, but something like they couldn't take Sabrina I think. X felt tremendously validated that someone outside their family had finally experienced this stuff.

She tells me because I've had poltergeist phenomenon and I believe her--and the most unbelievable parts, for anybody who's had it, are the most believable because that's really how it works--like you don't usually see stuff floating through the air from point A to point C, it's just that something is at point A and a micro-instant later it's at point C, for example. (Moved through time, not space.)

Recently, her little girl was sleeping in the living room while she watched TV real late one night, not more than 10 feet from her, and in the space of an hour, when she woke up, part of one eyebrow had been shaved, her upper lip hurt, and she had tiny razor marks around her legs. Not cuts, but scrapes. Now, this seems as impossible as every other poltergeist thing seems: X was RIGHT THERE, though not looking, and her daughter was wearing clothes!--and this happened "under" them--and we suspect the sudden pain was what woke her up. She called out to her mom who said what is it baby? and looked back at her and instantly noticed a whole big rectangle missing from one of her eyebrows. This event scared the hell out of X, who sought out every razor and bundled them up and hid them in a closet somewhere, and made her husband SO pissed that he stomped around the house cursing at Tim and telling him he was a balless coward for picking on little girls and why didn't he pick on HIM instead. He's been trying to harrass Tim into spending his energy on him rather than the kid.

Now, poltergeist activity is nearly always associated with children, and both of hers are near 11, which is about the age it usually kicks in. The family watches all kinds of spirit-related crap on TV, like Buffy and Angel and so on. I assumed, initially, that this was just PK activity, and that the slightly younger brother, despite that both the children are very healthy and happy, that this might be some subconscious PK acted out toward his sister. But I don't think so anymore. The whole repetition of the spirit-stuff, along with the writing, voices, and the poor damn cat LOL, the endless issue with small items especially remote controls, is a little too constant.

I told her, you "pay" attention. Every bit of attention you guys give this is just feeding it energy, period. QUIT! Ignore it. Marginalize it. Don't give it any free energy. But of course over time, more and more, they could not ignore it, even though she says they tried that for awhile, along with prayer and so on. At this point they're willing to save money (they're pretty poor) for an exorcist if they only knew where to find one and it'd have to be someone that works on 'houses'. She tells me there is so much stuff so constantly that I wouldn't even believe her if she bothered trying to recount it all. I probably would, but I know what she means.

I was so irked about the razor incident that I seriously considered stomping over to her house and seeing if I could call Michael and the spirit and do something about it all myself. But at this point, I've been out of mental work so long except spottily, I can hardly pay attention through a brief chakra meditation, never mind something that major, with an energy so turbulent. In other words, I don't think I'm qualified, and I think as a result it might be dangerous. I'm ticked though. I want to be qualified to deal with that. It is inappropriate. I feel the need to "facilitate the adjustment" of the situation. I always said I knew the first time I saw the Thoth tarot deck that "Adjustment" was my card, and funny enough things often feel like that to me, like I simply feel some inner need to bring things into balance via adjustment. I know all the cosmic wiccans are the Empress and High Priestess and stuff like that, so Adjustment seemed a little disappointing and unglam by comparison, but it was a gut-knowing, what can you do, I didn't consciously choose.

(It just occurs to me that maybe the tarot is a map of humanity the way The Four or the Tree of Life is, and so maybe every person has one card that basically they fall most into the pattern of. Hmmmn.)

I recently seriously acid-burned my fingers by spending like 7 hours cutting peppers and garlic. They hurt so bad I thought they would split open or something. I was talking to Nero (a guide) about it, and he made it go away totally, the pain, for about ten minutes. I shifted my attention and it came back. I was pretty damn impressed that he could do that though. Or maybe I did it but either way it was impressive. (By the next morning they were ok.)

It's raining, supposed to thunderstorm today. The back seat of my car is stuffed with four small flats of seedlings. The thunder is rolling and I think I'll do something constructive here. That about sums up my recent life. Mostly I've been doing archmeds -- or trying, denial puts me to sleep often lately! -- and gardening and spending time with the kid. Viewing... barely... still working on getting 'regular' time for that. Around "having a life" that's kind of hard. It's a matter of priorities, and viewing is so important to me, and yet... so are other things. Ah, the dichotomy...

PJ

Relationships and Attachment

2008-04-29T07:34:00.000-07:00

Sometimes when I come out of a remote viewing session, I have a short period where anything I think about, information about it just slides through me. It's rather like a period in my past when "information channeling" seemed to be pretty natural, not that I knew much about the subject at that time. Sometimes I get information about the session or myself, because I happen to have a thought or question about something like that just at that time. Other times, there's been something on my mind, and so the information has related to that.

A few years ago I finished a session and just happened to think of several semi-related things at the same time. It had to do with my little girl and our occasional arguments, my parents and their relationship. And I got a line of information about all that.

Now this works best when you hold the initial question in your intent, and then get the hell out of the way so the information can flow. Apparently there is a reason that trance channels actually leave the body: because as I have proved, if you are unwilling to do that (because you're a paranoid control freak), you stand a good chance of completely screwing it up.

The problem is that the information itself sparks new ideas and thoughts and questions. And the instant your mind is sparked by that, or follows that, you literally change the path of information slightly--you change the question. The result is an information flow that literally shifts its focus slightly with every sentence or half-sentence, which obviously results in a far lesser product in the end.

(I have very often wondered if this is part of the problem in remote viewing, actually: that as we start getting information we often slightly shift our focus to more about the info we just got, instead of staying with the original focus of the task-intent.)

I thought I should write down somewhere the info I got that night on relationships, because I still think of it often and wonder what there might be to it. (At this point it's completely paraphrased of course, as I've no idea where the original info is.) It's made me re-evaluate the role of argument and dispute in any relationship -- with children, with lovers, with friends, with siblings or parents or coworkers. I guess I had never thought about it this way before.

***

Relationships are defined by the degree and style of 'attachment' between the individuals.

('Attachment' in the way the Eastern religions use the word: it can be positive or negative, and is defined by its divergence from 'neutrality'.)

The more intense relationships have the deepest degrees of attachment.

The dynamic of attachment creates a need for definition: we 'sum up' what we believe a person to 'be' when we love or hate them.

We are attached not so much to the person as to our definition and interpretation of that person.

For the definition to change more than slightly, we must 'let go' of our attachment enough for that shift to take place in our interpretation.

Imagine holding someone very tight in your arms. When they grow and change and that is no longer comfortable, you have to let go briefly, so they can find a new, more appropriate and comfortable position for both of you, before you re-connect.

The newer an intense relationship, sometimes the more need there is for this process, because the initial definitions that were part of the attachments are incomplete. As the individuals know each other better, 'adjustment' may be needed less frequently.

This adjustment must be done or eventually the individuals will realize they don't know each other anymore: they have both changed beyond the ability of an 'adjustment'. They will either dissolve the relationship, stay strangers, or start the process of forming attachment over again.

In human relationships, the adjustment happens via emotion, usually anger. Separating a person from their attachment to another even for an instant is not easy, and it has to come from within that individual. The subconscious takes steps to bring about the emotional situation where this can happen.

Anger itself is a pushing-away emotion. It often comes with a releasing emotion (such as "forget you!"), or sometimes with a re-evaluation emotion ("maybe I really don't know him at all"), as well as the anger itself.

These moments (the more intense, the moreso) allow a lessening of attachment for a moment -- a minute, an hour, a day, whatever is necessary -- enough that the individuals can both be more fully themselves, and will be forced, if they wish to fully re-attach, to accept and allow the current energy-shape of the other person to be their new subconscious definition.

The stronger the attachment, the more intense the emotion necessary to separate sufficiently to allow adjustment (and the stronger they are likely to re-bond when that is past). This is why new young lovers often love and hate with equal ferocity, while a couple married 50 years may merely spend an afternoon irritated. Over time, attachment (if healthy) relaxes in relationships, allowing more natural growth and change in both individuals without stress to the bond.

***

Well, that was all. But now when I fight with someone I love, I figure maybe it's a needed event, and that we'll be stronger after that. Maybe the incredibly moronic things we sometimes fight about, are just the subconscious's way of getting us to that emotional place we need to visit to allow the shift.

I always thought that a person wasn't really a proven friend until you'd had a couple really gnarly arguments with them and gotten through that. There are several famous sayings about that 'proving ground' for true friendship. Maybe that's partly because two people can never wholly know each other at first attachment--and that if there were not those adjustment points, it would be a sign that there was not much attachment to begin with.

PJ

Life vs. Life

2008-04-24T12:10:00.001-07:00

This is an "experience" I had back in... I think the early 1990s. I'm not sure, now that I think about it, much of that era blurs for me. A vision? Waking dream? Alternate reality experience? Who knows. I don't think I've written it down anywhere, but it really moved me and made me think deeply about a few things, so having recalled it the other day when talking to a friend, it occurred to me that I ought to blog about it.

I'd been playing guitar with a guy named Tom Connell some time before. Highly intelligent, very talented, good looking guy and a helluva guitarist, he intrigued me. His brother Chris had been my best buddy for quite some time when we met. I paid him to give me lessons, of a sort; I'd never had any, which he found hard to believe. He taught me to play "Stormy Monday" which I considered worth all the cash combined, though I don't even remember it now.

What I do remember is that after a life of being damnably influenced by the music I loved, trying desperately not to write songs that sounded like clones (no jokes about my 200 songs in A-minor, now...), one night I set out to deliberately, for the first time in my life, deliberately write a song to sound like another. I made a list of rules: it had to have these jazz chords, this kind of timing, and so on. I'd never written anything with any 'rules' in place, and it was actually very cool. (That one was called "Count to Ten and Leave You." I imagined it being done on an acoustic guitar, sung by some appropriately black-soul-brother-of-blues, of course.) It came out different yet groovy, rather like writing exercises that are 'structured' sometimes do.

The funny part was, it sounded NOTHING like Stormy Monday, and in fact it would be difficult to sound any more UNlike the song if I'd tried. (Tom laughed like crazy.) So ironic, all things considered.

Anyway, one day when I hadn't seen him in quite some time, for some reason I was fairly deep in thought about him. He was the epitome of passive-aggressive: both he and his brother got a good dose of it (thanks Mom). He'd been Valedictorian of his high school, for godssakes. He could have done ANYTHING with his life. At that moment he could have been a CEO, a creative architect, a professor, a scientist, anything. The guy was brilliant, with more potential than 98% of the population.

Instead, he packed up his guitar and left Phoenix for California... to play guitar. He didn't want to be all those things; he wanted to play rock & roll.

So years later, there he was. A couple kids, a long-suffering, beautiful wife, a fantastic skill at guitar, yet-another band, and... and not much else. He wanted to play guitar, not work nine to five. He made very little money at his music-store day job, played whenever he could for money, and in a way, to me he summed up what I'd watched go past me my whole life: the faded fringes of the music industry.

I grew up on the fringes. Dad managed the biggest instrument store in the county most of my life, and played (guitar, steel and vocals) professionally since before I was born. There was a constant parade of excited musicians and new recording contracts and people hoping for that big break and, as any real musician knows, a whole world full of people with more skill than nearly anybody you'll ever hear on the radio, who can't get arrested let alone make much money to play.

And it's a long road, and a weary one, and you'd better be in it for the love of music because most the time all it does is rob your wallet, your years and your optimism and leave you wondering, what the hell would I have done with my life, if I'd known this outcome?

(Which reminds me, I wrote a song called "L.A. Stone" about this idea and him, much later.)

Well I was thinking about him a lot one day. I had quit going to see him some time before. I really liked him a lot, but I started to feel like I had to pay him to associate with me. It sorta hurt my feelings, but he hadn't done anything to make that happen, he'd been nothing but great to me. I just didn't want to be his fan or his student only, but his friend. There wasn't really the situation for that, is all.

I loved his brother deeply, far too much for decency given we were only friends frankly, so I gave him some slack just by virtue of being related to my best friend. But I was sad that on some level, he felt untouchable to me. He was a nice guy, a super smart and talented guy, loved his wife and kids, but you could almost feel the 'wall of reserve' around him, that invisible psychic buffer zone that P/As carry with them always. So I'd wandered off, and not seen him in some time.

I wondered why life turns out the way it does. I wondered if it was a bad thing that he'd given up college and a whole lifestyle to instead go play guitar and not really go anywhere with it. I wondered if that qualified as throwing his life away, or if maybe there was some other obscure reason why in the end, it might all be for the best. I couldn't really think of one frankly. But I mused on this off and on all day one day.

And then that night while sitting quietly, I fell into one of the odd "linear, interactive visions" that I had more commonly in those days than now.

It was another world, another life, a not-quite-parallel universe, you might say.

***

I was sitting on the perfect lawn, picking the grass that intruded on the edges of the marble gravestone set flush into the ground. I sat here every day, afternoons after school. I tried to cry sometimes, but usually couldn't... not really. I just felt empty, passively angry and more than a little numb.

I felt like everything in my world that made sense had departed when dad died. My life of optimistic faith in how everything would be alright, was as inaccessible as my father, six feet under where I sat. There was no sense to it, no reason. He was just gone, dead for over a year, and I felt like my life, my mom's life, my brother's life, had meandered over to a depressing, dismal shade of purgatory.

Mom, who'd been such a cheerful part-time nurse's aid when dad was alive, had gained too much weight. She was chronically exhausted, and looked so unhappy. The lines on her face and her look of bone-weariness and lonely resignation broke my heart anew every day.

And my brother, the sports hero, the good-grades good-boy I couldn't begin to compete with, yet worshipped my whole life, had changed, first a little and then gradually far moreso. Eventually his grades had fallen, he'd quit the teams, and he'd taken up guitar and started hanging out with a different kind of people. Now instead of his handsome face in neatly cut hair and letterman's sweater, he had long shaggy hair and a black rock & roll t-shirt most the time. He was still smart, with his bright eyes and pirate's smile, but now he was droll, sarcastic and even biting. His songwriting reflected the deep turmoil inside him.

We had no money now. Mom worked way too much and we were still poor. Our yard was overgrown. Our screen door was hanging by a single hinge and banged against the door in wind. Weeds grew up the edges of the porch steps. Our house, like our clothing, like our lives and our hopes, was wearing out, too demoralized by the gaping hole in our middles to even pretend to be cheerful. Dad was the center of everything. I don't think we'd ever realized this until suddenly he was dead, and there we were. Zombies in hell, pretending that life wasn't irreparable, that it would be better someday.

I thought about the day before. I'd gone to see my brother, who worked at a small hardware store. There was a round low counter, and he'd been joking with some customers when I came in. I watched him there, his wicked white smile, his eyes of pain and light, his grungy concert shirt, his "intensity", and I felt such love for him, and yet such grief. Dad's death had destroyed us, I felt. My brother was the shining one. I would have given my own life to see him truly happy, my hero since I was four years old. But he wasn't, he was filled with that pain, that rage, that "inner-driven" quality he'd taken on since dad's death, and there was nothing I could do about it.

Nothing. I could do nothing.

Somehow, after months off and on of visiting the graveyard on the way home from school every day, for the first time I actually had the sense of my father's presence. It shook me a little, and moved me.

I whispered out loud: "Daddy."

And that was it: it all broke through, and I started crying, bawling with such long deep sobs it was like dredging the pain up from the cosmic depths of soul. I yelled at him. "Why did you leave us? Our lives SUCK without you!" I screamed in rage, pounding my fists on the grass. I finally found myself lying on my face on the headstone, crying with such body-shaking grief that eventually I couldn't breathe.

I finally relaxed into occasional sobs and long sighs. I rested my head on one arm, and idly bent the blades of grass nearest my eyes, thoughtless and exhausted, yet somehow freed from the inability to grieve I'd had for so long.

It was a gradual realization, so subtle, that someone's hand was on my shoulder. I sat up, and turned toward that, and my hands fell uselessly to my sides as I stared at him, wordless. My father sat next to me, his hand on my shoulder, looking so much like... well, like himself, that it was all I could do not to start crying again. I wondered if he was real. Maybe I was hallucinating.

"Are you real?" I whispered.

"For a little while," he whispered back with a smile.

"Why did you leave?" I demanded.

"It was the way it is," he said, as if that made sense.

"Everything is so BAD now!" I accused him, starting to sob again.

"Things are as they should be," he said gently.

I stared at him, in surprise and anger.

"How can you SAY that?!" I demanded. "Why? WHY?"

He watched me watch him, as I cried silently but copiously, barely seeing his blurring image through my tears. And then he said softly, "Do you really want to know why?"

I nodded silently yes.

He stood up, and held out his hand, and I took it and stood, and we began to walk. Toward home, which was a block away and around the corner. I didn't know what he meant, but I wanted my mom and brother to see him. I wanted him to tell all of us that it was alright. Even though it couldn't possibly be.

We turned the corner and I stared quietly at the house as we approached it. It had been freshly painted. The weeds around the steps were gone. The lawn was lovely. The screen was fixed. It looked rather like it had before dad had died, in fact. I stared at him curiously but silently. Had he magically made everything alright? I thought I was bringing home a rather solid ghost, but how could that change my house?

We went up the stairs and into the house. It was different inside, too. Things were nicer. It was cleaner. And it just... felt better, somehow. It felt like a house where normal people live. Not like a mausoleum.

Mom came bustling out of the back room. She was supposed to be at work. But she was home--and she was thin again. Her face looked years younger, and I hadn't seen her look that rested and happy since--well, since before dad had died. I stared at her open-mouthed, my heart feeling an actual pain, like seeing her how she had been, so happy, so loving, was killing me.

They kissed and talked of trivial things as he followed her into the kitchen. I watched them go, falling into an armchair feeling like things were a bit surreal, and it beginning to dawn on me that for mom, obviously, he had never left.

Maybe I had cried myself to death and this was my heaven: a world where mom was healthy and happy and dad was still alive.

Something felt wrong, though. Not like a bad thing, just like... something out of place. Something was missing from mom. I wasn't sure what.

I heard the slam of a door on a truck, and through the window I watched my brother walk around to the other side of a beautiful black pickup. He looked like I dreamed he would, if things had gone on as they had been instead of our father dying. He opened the door and a girl climbed out, a lovely girl I didn't know but who seemed to be his girlfriend.

They came into the house, dad and mom coming out of the kitchen at the same time. As they used to do, he and dad touched fists and then shook hands in a street handshake and a loving exchanged smile. That was before my brother became a rebel angry at the world. I watched him, feeling like I was in a little bit of shock. He had on nice clothes, and a sweater tied around his shoulders. He looked like a member of the yacht club now, with his clean-cut hair and macho grace.

He and dad stood and talked about his truck, and I watched him. He looked happier, for certain. Content. His face was much fuller, softer, and he had that comfortable ease with the world he used to have. The ease of a boy with paid college, a truck and a girlfriend and Friday night football... not that thinner young man of angry rebel-rock screamed in grungy little clubs and garages and basements.

I tuned into their conversation again, realizing he was in college now, not working the hardware store. Wow was his life different. Mom came back into the room and hugged him, and he talked about his girlfriend and their engagement. He grinned at me and I smiled back, feeling a little bewildered still.

It dawned on me slowly, but deeply.

He was happier, but it wasn't him.
Mom was happier, but it wasn't her.

It wasn't just that their quiet desperation, their grief and loneliness, had vanished. It was that they had never been. And they were both... less deep, as a result. Less... intense, for sure, in my brother's case, but I suspected in both. It was as if they'd been "simplified" somehow.

As if pain had made them both more alive.

Had forced them to 'feel' in ways they never had.

And in some respects, had made them more of the human beings that they had the potential to be, than they would have been, could have been, with dad there.

They might not be happier or healthier. The things we normally consider important, those were definitely worse without him. But some ineffable quality, some "spark of spirit", some survival-skill inspired, pain-generated lighthouse of inner life had never been forced to grow in them.

And their souls were less for it. I could see it. I could feel it. That was the sense of wrongness. It was a sort of . . . "development" that they'd been deprived of. My brother and his girlfriend said goodbye and left, and mom kissed dad goodbye as she went off somewhere as well, and dad and I were left alone in the house.

He knelt in front of the chair I sat in, and looked at me with compassion. I had a couple of slow tears on my face. I understood, but almost wished I didn't. I accepted his death now, for the first time, although I kind of hated that I did. I wondered if there was some equivalent in me, that I couldn't see. Something that the void of him in my life had forced me to reach down into and pull out of my soul for survival.

He held out his hand, and I took it and stood, and we walked, hand in hand. Down the porch stairs, across the nice lawn, around the corner. Down the block, and into the small graveyard that I had visited too many times to count since his death. We walked slowly to his grave, and stood next to it, looking down at it, his hand holding mine.

I looked up at him beside me, my tears gone. I felt ok now. Although I felt a new kind of grief I didn't fully understand, the keen sharp edge on the old grief was dull now, and it felt like something known for too long, something I could live with. I gazed at him with gratitude, and understanding, and the odd feeling that in that moment we were more equals-in-soul than we had ever been.

And he leaned down and tenderly kissed my forehead, and turned away, and faded in a few steps to gone.

I stood there for awhile, just looking down at the stone with his name. Then I slowly turned, and in the waning light toward dusk, I walked home alone.

I rounded the corner and eyed the weeds growing over the edge of our porch steps. The shabby paint on the railings of the porch. The listlessly hanging screen door. This was my life now, I realized. Not just a life missing dad, but a life that was mine to do with, to be with, to feel with. In its own way, every experience opens doorways to parts of ourselves we have never known, parts we choose to know, no matter how the surface of that decision is hard to understand.

I climbed the stairs, thinking. I should fix that screen for mom.

***

When I came out of that vision, or unusually-linear-dream-while-awake, whatever it was, I felt as if my day of thoughtfulness had basically been answered. I call it a "sit-in", when it seems I am part of someone else's life for awhile. Some other aspect of me, who knows. I had wondered, genuinely. I'd been answered.

We are who we choose to be. Our experiences help shape who we need to be. The shallow surface measures of beauty, money, and a life of ease, have nothing to do with the needs of our soul.

Tom, like my brother, needed his guitar.

PJ

The Third Coming

2008-04-22T07:06:00.000-07:00

The other night (morning, actually), I was dreaming.

Upon a really tall hill, stood this big structure. Sort of a house, in a way. I went to the structure and found it had three stories to it. I went to the third story and found that it was open inside and had three stories within itself, as well. I went to the third story of the third story and walked around.

There were people there, some seemed oblivious to everything, others seemed to know each other. The moment I arrived, though, I understood that I was one of four who had come to meet in this place. The odd thing is that it wasn't my normal "Four elementals of soul" symbology -- if it was, they were all certainly very different than I normally perceive them. Or perhaps this was 'grafted on'. Who knows.

There was a man, who was very quiet. Not quite sullen, but the kind of quiet that is not really peaceful and you'd be reluctant to disturb. He was in his 40s or 50s I guessed, and wearing a suit. The sort of man who seems always uncomfortable in his clothes. I understood that he was ridiculously, almost monstrously, psychic, and that was his 'role' almost like an unspoken job in our world.

There was a woman, who looked like someone's grandmother. In her late 50s or early 60s I guessed, she was just a few pounds overweight and wearing a flowered dress with a kind face. She looked like she ought to be making cookies for someone in the south. But she was also incredibly powerful, psychically, the reason she was part of the four.

My friend J was there as well. But he was only half there; his attention was split. We "all understood" that this was necessary, because his other half was off negotiating with the leader of some arabic country in an attempt to keep the peace for another few minutes. He is certainly pretty powerfully psychic, and he was of the four.

And then there was me. I wondered what I was doing there. It felt appropriate that I was one of the four and yet, it was really obvious why THEY were there and meeting; and yet who the hell am I, I'm just restarting viewing after eons out, I'm a psychic brick, I'd be lucky to view my way to my own front door with my eyes open, it's pitiful how painful it is when I restart after a long time away from it. I decided with some depressive cynicism that maybe I really didn't need to be in on this group meeting all things considered, and I wandered down to the second floor and was walking around looking at things and talking to people.

Then the woman thought at me that I was to come back up to the third story of the third story where they were, with a bit of a tone in her thought as if I were a rather wandering-attention child or something; I knew why we were there, and where I was supposed to be, so why was I wandering all over the place?

I returned to that level, going near her, but pointed out, well I don't see why you need me here. You guys are the cornerstone monster psychics of my country or world apparently, but I'm obviously not.

And she says/thinks, with this sort of ... not patronizing in a bad way, but in an observant and weary way, "Well yes, we understand that you continue to deny and avoid this, but we trust that eventually you will take responsibility for yourself and accept that." It came with the overlay of 'destiny'. Her tone of thought was almost like a disapproving grandmother. Not angry, not really judgemental, but not willing to pretend, because you clearly aren't living up to her expectations, either.

Then we all sort of merged psychically so our thoughts were shared.

There were two important things we had to meet about. One I cannot recall. In my memory I could swear it was about a movie, or some kind of video, which had information which 'gave something away' to the public in such a way that it literally changed the dominant consciousness of enough population to affect "probability" fairly radically. Alas I don't remember more than that.

The other was about a man. Now, the man in the suit had found him first; the woman had found him second; but they'd both done so independently. The man in the suit had actually figured out his name, though he didn't share it. We all four considered the situation.

The man was a messiah. Basically a 'larger, more intense dose of god within a human body' is about the only way I can put it. And he was... coming. I couldn't tell if he had already been born or if he was just coming soon, but it was "soon" either way, whatever his status or age might be.

His presence was going to cause a highly significant change in the population's awareness, which affected future probability significantly. It was like a wildcard, as futurology calls them. We were looking at a possibly profound shift in our people, nation, and world, as a result of this man's presence.

I had a sort of overlay of Jesus, but not from the others, just from my own association with the concept of a messiah. It wasn't like it was the same person. But it was, actually, like much of the same energy flowing through a different person, so in a way, it was the same. I understood that in terms of a highly specific individual whose presence here (directly or indirectly) could change the course of history, it was his third coming to our place. It had been a long time since the last time and longer still since the first.

And then my alarm went off and woke me up. I felt like I had to drag myself out from under the sea to get to it.

PJ

Abramelin and Remote Viewing

2008-04-04T19:10:00.000-07:00

I once met an Abramelin entity. I told him the story of the Flatlanders. I assumed that entities like him were just too multidimensional for us to understand or something, and I was explaining how this story had given us that concept.

He said that wasn't so. And he showed me how finding him was actually a super thin, super specific layer of reality, or frequency. I could not possibly find it with my conscious intent because my intent was too clumsy -- like trying to use your eyes to see molecules. Your eyes work fine, and molecules are visible, but that doesn't mean that the tool is appropriate to the focus. My conscious intent included some degree of thinking I had a clue, just because I had a desire, and it skewed the search into looking for things I knew, I related to, that made even subconscious sense to me.

I had to set my intent to find him, but then LET GO, and let the parts of me much better at this kind of thing work out the exact address. Once I was there and it started coming into focus, then I could pick up control again, and use my intent to explore.

At the time it totally reminded me of those Magic-Eye (3D) pictures, as that was the same dynamic: I had to pick a focus and the intent, and then "let go" and let my brain work out the detail--not my eyes--and once the brain had worked it out and it started coming decently into focus for my eyes, then I could put my eyes back in charge again of the focus.

I was recently rereading Bewilderness (as I reformatted it for the modern world), and it reminded me of this guy and what he was trying to teach me, about "Will" being a root-layer of intent but separable from the rest of intent (specifically separable from 'conscious trying').

Showing me how I had many "layers" of intent, and didn't have to use them all as one big club, but could separate layers of intent for more precise work--and for getting conscious intent out of the way in situations where it wasn't equipped for the job, because it simply didn't have the finesse or knowledge needed.

Like archeology. Sometimes you need a backhoe... but sometimes you just need a tiny little brush.

I had never before connected this to remote viewing until last night. In RV we have the same basic structure or challenge as finding something invisible:

1 - An arbitrarily created 'target' identity;

2 - A need to move our awareness to it, or it to us, or 'find it within us', or whatever the viewer's personal model of how this works;

3 - A conscious intent that doesn't know what that identity is (let alone where/how to find it).

Except unlike the Abramelin entity's demonstration for me, and unlike the magic-eye pictures, in RV we don't quite do it this way. We assume from the get-go that our conscious intent to describe 'the' target, whatever it might be, is what we need, and that's the habit.

So for those sessions that turn out not to relate to the target, we say, "Apparently the intent wasn't strong enough." Or something.

This reminds me of a charismatic church I went to when I was young. No matter how sincere you were, if you were not speaking in tongues, then you had not given yourself to Jesus ENOUGH, you were holding back! If you weren't holding back, you'd be babbling like the rest of them! And everybody accepted this because there was no known answer for why some people, some of the time, "spoke in tongues," and some people didn't very often, and/or didn't always. You can bet a lot of people faked it lest it look like they were not truly devoted.

I never faked it. I said, "It's just not happening for me Reverend." Everybody looked at me in such sympathy. Such resistance to the love of Jesus! Poor young girl.

(It's really a miracle I learned to appreciate the godform of Jesus despite religion.)

But remote viewing has about the same level of logic going for it on this topic: you didn't connect with the appropriate target? You had a good session on the wrong thing? Your target "acquisition" was off? File 13. It happens to everyone. Everybody knows. Apparently your intent was not strong enough.

OR SOMETHING.

Is there some different means of focus that would change anything?

PJ

Target Acquisition Errors

2008-04-04T19:03:00.000-07:00

Aside from the million things we screw up in any given session--those are things that experience teaches, so they don't phase me--what is the biggest problem in remote viewing, the thing that makes it the most exasperating, the thing that makes evaluation the most difficult even with solid controls, the thing that makes it most inconsistent?

Incorrect target acquisition. Or, to put it another way: it appears that sometimes, we knock on the wrong door. And we have an entire conversation with the 'identity' there, and it's a good conversation, and we feel ok about it, until feedback when we realize that the target identity we were communing with has approximately zero relationship to the intended target identity. And since we never know physically exactly *what* target-identity we were talking to, we have no feedback for the experience.

Now some would argue that it simply "wasn't psychic" because it was "totally off-target". I disagree. I think it doesn't have feedback so we cannot validate whether or not it's psychic, that much is true, of course. But I think given the feeling of the overall session can be compared to a lot of other experience--and 'no decent psychic connection' is a known experience, and something wholly different than what I'm talking about--I believe in those cases, the viewer still had a session, met a target, collected data, etc. It's simply that unfortunately, the 'identity' of the target they met was incorrect. They got the street address wrong in the matrix or whatever the hell it might be, who knows.

It's easy to admit that it's wrong--that part isn't in question. The debate is whether or not this is an issue of "not being remotely psychic," vs. "being at least potentially psychic, but apparently about the totally wrong thing."

Some people think this doesn't matter. That the only thing that matters is that it was wrong. Yet I consider this issue one of the biggest issues in viewing. Of course it matters, if you are expecting practice and feedback to actually do you some good.

But other issues, all of them are usually process or interference issues, and can be learned from with feedback, like any other sport of a sort. But simply being 'off target' after a whole session that seemed just fine, and did not seem to have any intent or process difference from any other on-target session, there is nothing that we learn from that.

Except not to trust ourselves, except that psi is whimsical enough to make us want to kill it sometimes, except that our actual feelings and perceptions are unreliable. In short, it does all the harm of a form of negative feedback, but none of the good that feedback can if it shows you how you were inaccurate, which leads at least sometimes to understanding why. It's just a bad experience, period.

If you judged most sessions by criteria as harsh as the science lab might, a ton of sessions that viewers consider on-target but poor or even average would probably be considered not on target, simply because they either didn't have enough data to demonstrate that, or had too much data that was inaccurate. The english language, and the relatively small number of unique "forms and dynamics" in our reality, not to mention the issues of symbolism and analogy, mean that it's actually quite an accomplishment to write out say, 20 lines of data, and not be able to find something that can conceivably be considered a match to target -- even if we cycled through ten feedback photos, none of which were the actual target. (Don't even start me on 32 page sessions...) I think the problem is a bigger problem than laymen realize because I suspect that laymen greatly underestimate how often it happens with them due to this.

Even in the lab, there were two numbers that people like McMoneagle used to quote: the percentage of the time they were on-target, and then when they were on target, the percentage of data that was likely to be accurate. The issue with contacting the 'proper' target has always been an issue.

Psychic work camouflaged this throughout history, because the psychics knew the target, and so you never really had a chance to see them 'completely off target', because they either knew enough about it, or had enough exposure to people or environmental information, that they would always describe something that sounded like it could be accurate; whether any of the details really are, is another story.

Remote Viewing solved this problem with the doubleblind. If the target is a goldfish pond and the viewer describes a man, they are off-target. If the target is a child's bedroom and they describe a nuclear reactor, they're off target. If the target is a deer and they describe something in space, they're off target. Remote viewing gave us the chance to prevent the pollution of front-loading and other non-psi sources of info, so we could truly see what a person was connected with psychically. And what we see, not surprisingly, is that people aren't nearly as accurately-connected to the universe around them as many assume. This is part of why a lot of people really hate the double-blind, not surprisingly, and will argue extensively and creatively for why it really doesn't matter. It matters. If they were better, they wouldn't have a problem with it.

But what we also see is that somewhere in the "making that appropriate connection" part of the process, there's often a problem--one we are not doing anything to consider or work on, because we haven't any idea how, so everybody acts like the problem doesn't exist (or "doesn't exist for me, because I am super-viewer, ta-da!"). Instead we obsess on AOL, Stage 5 tools and how accurate-yet-succinct we can be (please god) in a session; those things, we can do something about. Having a perfectly good session that turns out to be on the perfectly wrong target, nobody's got any answer for.

In modern RV, the benefit of the doubleblind mostly comes in for the evaluation aspect; frontloading prevents the lack of target contact from being so obvious. I think there may be a good use for frontloaded-evaluation of existing sessions, or even MILDLY frontloading a second session (the first being truly doubleblind, and only IF the first one appears to at least be in the target genre), but the initial "clean contact having to prove itself" is something unique to RV and the best thing going for its accuracy in implementation. As psychics, viewers aren't any more or less accurate than psychics throughout time, they're simply working in an improved model that maximizes the ability to see when target contact is off, by minimizing the ability to get or skew information based on non-psi sources. (Of course, this doesn't stop viewers from wanting to revert RV to the muck it was dragged out of in a couple dozen different ways, but that's another topic.)

Now the science lab with RV wanted the best viewers. If you weren't testably, provably good, you were out. A teeeeeeeny number of people worked 'long term' (as opposed to occasionally or for a couple studies, some of which might have dealt with skill in the average person) as a result. Now with McMoneagle the general gist of it --to me anyway-- often ended up sounding like, "Ok, well it works for him X% of the time, but almost nobody else truly is talented like that, so give up, take your ball and go home." (My response to this impression the first time I got it is unprintable, lest the search engines avoid me ever-after.)

But essentially what the lab did by accident or design was filter down to the incredibly few humans who had the greatest percentage of correct-target-acquisition. That does not mean they were the best or most amazing psychics, that should be understood: consistency means a great deal more than star-power when it comes to labwork. So when you consider that target-acquisition wasn't even great for them (ranging from 50-80+%, although the measure in a layman or application settings would be higher than the measure in the lab), it brings home how big an issue it probably is for the rest of the world.

But because nobody knew how to deal with that, they simply worked to get people who had the least issue with it. And because their viewers had the least issue with it, they either didn't bother studying it, or haven't told us about it if so, or didn't figure out how to touch it. So the primary problem in psi, that we had from the dawn of time, but with the advent of a decent RV protocol we could finally see clearly, still hasn't been touched, improved on, or better understood.

Worse, this is the one factor that the scientists say doesn't change--ever. That viewers may get better based on practice, when they "are" on-target, but as far as their % of accurate target acquisition (to begin with) goes, it is 10, 20, 30 years later the same as when they walk in the door, as if it's something set in genetic-stone.

In the science psi world they've accepted that only a tiny fraction -- half of one percent, maybe -- of people are decently talented for lab work, and of those, that their ability for accurate target acquisition, totally aside from other viewing-related skills, never improves.

This is true based on their data.

It offends me greatly anyway.

To me, this is like people who go on diets, and after a few pounds don't lose weight, and continue dieting, and they still don't lose weight, and they call it a 'stall'. You go to the bodybuilding world and you don't see people having nine month 'stalls', because nobody in that world would put up with such a thing: if what they were doing wasn't working, they would have done something else long prior. You go to weight watchers meetings where people have been in the group 20 years and they are still fat but they continue to have hope that doing the same thing they've been doing for 20 years is magically going to work now. (Einstein once said doing the same thing and expecting a different result was the definition of insanity.) And when it clearly is not working to any degree, whether because their body isn't responding or because nutritionally their body is incapable of staying on that eating plan, they accept that as if it is a tragic fate, and generally, nothing changes. Except sometimes they give up.

It's like a cult mentality -- you see it in dieting, you see it in religion, you see it in all kinds of things where there is any kind of doctrine that has to be defended even when quite obviously it is at best insufficient for consistent results and at worst an abysmal failure.

Remote Viewing has a little of that too, even in the most legitimate corners. I don't personally find it acceptable that we have no idea what causes inaccurate target acquisition, and no idea how to improve that. And I don't find it reasonable that the assumed explanation for this is that ~~you don't love jesus enough~~ you didn't focus well enough.

There are a ton of problems that can and do happen in RV. Issues with focus, assumption, imagination, and other kinds of AOL are common, but you can SEE those when you evaluate your results. This issue--this target acquisition issue--you can't see at all.

And since people like McMoneagle say "intent" is what it's all about, I'm a little torn: on one hand, he's the boss so to speak, I take his comments on RV very seriously. On the other hand, if even he hasn't improved his 'target acquisition'% in 30 years, then he's no help at all on that particular subject--nobody is.

Aside from process issues, there are 'interference' issues. Sometimes you just can't seem to make contact, you wander, you stare at the paper, whatever, there are other problems that can arise. But all of these are recognizeable when they occur. If that's an issue, you can view later, you can make up exercises to make it intense but brief or different in some way. If process issues come up, you can deal with them as a learning process. But process issues, and interference issues, can be perceived, and as a viewer gets more experience, dealt with more adequately. Target acquisition issues are really a different kind of problem.

First, you spend all this time on a session and the whole thing is considered trash. This is hardly improved by feedback which tells you that. You may have spent the entire session being adequately psychic and well-behaved in process, only to have all of it invalidated as not-counting, despite that aside from the initial acquisition aspect, the rest of the session might have gone very well, you'll never know.

It's demoralizing. I've been fortunate that it doesn't seem as common with me as with others I see, but it still happens to me too sometimes, and it pisses me off in a big way. Viewers don't talk about this much, I assume because everyone wants to be considered good at it. I consider it the RV-family dysfunction, like that Issue Nobody Talks About (the elephant the mother in the AA commercial is vaccuuming around).

Second, it's not uncommon for RV applications groups to pretty quickly get into the mode of wanting to pour in all kinds of non-psi info to the process, particularly frontloading. This annihilates the ability to clearly perceive when a viewer is offtarget; thanks to frontloading, every perception they get is going to be brought through a model that will make it seem like it could be so, and we're back to where we were with psychics before RV came along and the doubleblind gave us the first means to half-way evaluate at least whether someone was truly 'in touch' with the intended target or not. At least with RV, historically the project manager had the option to exclude 'obviously off target' sessions, or retask for a different session. Killing the protocol just means you have to take everything because now everything looks equal on the surface.

In the layman's world, there's so much creatively positive evaluation of sessions (particularly long ones which have SO much data they hit nearly every possible target along the way), that I think a lot of viewers only notice totally off-target sessions maybe 20% of the time it actually happens. But I have yet to meet anybody who's never had it happen.

And I have yet to meet anybody who has the slightest idea what to do about it. They focus. They intend. They practice harder, or more, or longer, or less, or change methods... it still happens sometimes. Nobody knows why.

Thus far, everybody has apparently been content to accept the hopelessness of built-in target-acquisition frequency limits.

I'm not. I don't know that I can do anything about it, but there has got to be something we're missing about this process.

Once target contact is made, viewing is not rocket science. Most anybody can do it. Practice obviously makes a difference. Clear thinking and communication skills probably matter more than excessive amounts of psi 'talent'; a little, once you have target acquisition, is enough.

So to me, everything comes down to target acquisition. In the lab they just hire people already good at it. In my world, I'd like to know how to make anybody better at it.

So far, most of what RV has brought to the table toward improving this issue is: "Describe the target." Wait, there's also the previous one: "Here's a number that has no relation to anything but which I meditated on related to the target. Use this to focus and describe the target."

Hmmnn. Not exactly a leap forward on the scale of development, is it.

I see approximately no evidence of any serious efforts toward improving the accuracy or the clarity of initial target acquisition. I'm sure there have been some, somewhere, by someone, but it isn't visible or known to me (I'm glad for refs if anyone has them).

Is there something we are missing about "intent?"

Is our use of "conscious intent" only partly-workable because that isn't the ideal way to go about it? What other options are there?

Are there psychological, or spiritual, or physical exercises that would contribute to improving this situation, reducing the inaccuracy in acquisition issue?

What is the point of trying so hard in all the process areas, if one of the most important facets of overall accuracy--initial target acquisition--is insufficient yet completely ignored?

PJ

Thoughtforms, Geometry and Abstract Identities

2008-04-04T07:00:00.002-07:00

This is the third and last post on the concept of identity, which is just the first part of the equation I'm trying to hash out in my head for a larger question.

One of the most interesting things about metaphysics is the bizarre stuff that makes total sense inside you but sounds bewildering to anybody you try and explain it to. Either people have such an experience themselves, and they know what you mean, or they haven't, so there's no way they can.

Thoughts are things, as Edgar Cayce is quoted as saying. I agree. But in the case of deliberately generated thoughtforms, they are powerful things.

In the east, a thoughtform of a creature of any kind (including a human) would be called a Tulpa. I'm not sure if they have a different word for thoughtforms that are not seemingly autonomous entities (such as inanimate objects). I read a neat book on it once. The creation of this sort of thing is a whole magical art unto itself.

Some would suggest that simply altering belief systems and probability to bring what you need into your life, is probably easier than creating it from scratch. This is probably true. But there's always those people who will build their furniture rather than buy it, so I suppose it's the same sort of thing in a way.

Fictional characters in a story are thoughtforms. I believe that the more people who read a given book, and the more energy, interest, emotion they put into that character in various ways, the stronger the thoughtform. James Bond and Harry Potter have become literal archetypes in our culture, as an example.

Religious icons, from Mary to Mithras, no matter what they might have been at any point in the past, have had so much energy-attention poured into them that they have become autonomous thoughtform Tulpas on a nearly god-like level, at least compared to us. So the thoughtforms range from the wispy creations of an unpublished fiction writer, to unimaginably powerful creations that, like humans but even moreso, grow into their own sense of identity and autonomy eventually.

It's not just characters, though. I consider everything inanimate a thoughtform--it's merely that some things have more "representational energy within the bandwidth I call physical reality" than others.

If I take out my tools and I cut and plane wood, router it, put it together into a chair, sand it, paint it, and then use it, in my view that chair is a thoughtform. My "representational magic" just happened to be quite literal in this case. (A voodoo doll, by comparative example, is representational magic, but indirect.) But its envisioning, and its creation, and its perfection, and then its utilization, are all something that I arranged.

The same goes for everything, even if it's a television with two thousand tiny parts made in an automated lab in Taiwan. Still, someone had to plan--(humans playing nature-deva)--every tiny piece, and the arrangement, and the function, and everything that went into making it, and everything from the raw materials mining to the commercial marketing in retail stores is part of contributing to that thoughtform, both individually for a given TV, and as an archetype about TVs in general.

So you won't be surprised that in general, I consider most everything a thoughtform on some level (some are physical, some aren't), and I consider all thoughtforms to be an identity of sorts, whether it's a television or a fictional character.

Geometry:

When communicating in some rather obscure states-of-mind, nothing really works to get an idea across in terms of words. What does work, though, is if you "intuitively search" for a "geometric shape" that "feels like it fits" the concept you're trying to get across. This may be large or small, simple or complex, it's usually pretty offbeat, and sometimes it takes awhile to 'feel out' the various proportions of it that intuitively feel right.

Once you have the whole thing feeling appropriate, then you can present that shape to an entity--and to them, for whatever reason, it apparently makes sense.

Often I've had this "language training" in dreams that felt like some kind of geometry. And there's a level of both spontaneous dowsing (simple gut-locating) and grokking (like a whole galaxy) that is entirely based on "geometry-of-meaning."

For a long time I considered the 'base' of most everything in the universe to be 'shapes and relationships of energy' -- or, geometry -- but so far I still have no evidence for that. Then I considered geometry to be a sort of language, because for me shapes were being used as a language. But eventually I realized that I was marginalizing the whole concept.

A given shape/geometry of energy is just as much a 'thing' as, say, a chair -- and in some respects, might be more 'pure' a thing, for having less 'add-on' to its nature: it's just a shape, not necessarily some material-energy made into a thing in that shape. Shapes don't feel like thoughtforms to me because they feel like they are behind or under that, as if thought itself is laid upon shape in order to take a certain 'form' -- as thoughts are not physical, the 'form' they take is a sort of geometry... it becomes physical, in an energetic sense, on some level. This could be wrong or incomplete, it's just my impressions so far.

I once merged with a geometric shape; it was astounding, like my whole form took on that shape, like it grew to life inside me and 'of' me with my energy, and like I morphed and stretch to match it, which was awesome. But the real point I'm making is only that eventually, I came to consider all geometric form--which is infinite--to be at base, a sort of identity of its own. Let's say something simple, like a triangle. As a geometry, which is also an archetype... it is an identity.

Numbers are in the same category. I once merged with the number 4. Man, 99.9% of the experience was completely ineffable, and that's just the part I was able to retain when it was over; most was too far out. It was like becoming one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe. Every number is infinite, as Liber al vel Legis says... I really believe that now. Before that experience I had never considered that the number four was literally "sentient to the degree of a powerful godform". That was hard to wrap my brain around for awhile, since to me, numbers are just abstracts.

But aside from numbers, so are fictional characters. So are geometries. Abstracts, ideas, just as much as physical things, are at the least thoughtforms, and in the case of geometric shapes and numbers, possibly much, much more. It's a little hazy on the lesser things, but there is no doubt on the greater things, that these are definitely--at the least--"identities".

Identity is an arbitrary collection of energy. 10 marbles, a bowl, and that bowl of marbles, are 12 different identities technically--because when you start adding things together, your equation has a slightly different sum; every combined thing is a new identity just from the combination, more than the sum of its parts. Let us say you have a table at a restaurant, and you have five people plus a waiter, and all the food, and a birthday cake, and a celebration. All the components that are part of that birthday dinner go into making up the *identity* that is "the birthday dinner." That identity is a conglomerate, a composite, and it includes several people and objects and aside from that, it includes all energy dynamics within a given span of time, and many other subtle elements.

This is why in remote viewing, you can target an idea. You can target a fictional character. You can target an event. Even though these things are not "things," nor are they "people", those definitions themselves make up an identity.

And because everything is an identity--a unique identity, even though in many cases there is so little uniqueness that a viewer tends to get more of the group thoughtform/ archetype than the specific (e.g. if targeted on a television, a viewer is as likely to get archetypal info about TVs, even if it's not accurate for the specific one in question)--but because everything is an identity, viewers are more than capable of simply tuning into that identity as a "target".

You might say that the whole identity concept is merely a "singular" way of putting it. A person has a ton of different energy and components but we call that conglomerate "PJ". A television has a zillion tiny parts but we call it "a TV." A birthday dinner has a ton of different elements, from physical forms to entities to objects to 'energy dynamics' without form, but we call it "a birthday dinner."

The fact that identity is arbitrary and able to be collected in infinite ways is great. It's what allows "a target" to be a singular tasking in RV, rather than a detailed list of every imaginable detail involved. That's pretty important, since at root, we may not even know what all is involved and that might be part of the whole point of viewing something in the first place. But if we know the "host identity" -- the target -- we can explore its components.

So, is accessing a given "identity" merely a matter of getting your attention to it? Is every identity comprised of energy? If there is no space, and there is no time, exactly 'where and when' is this energy being stored? How do we find the Star Trek "section 729G" address of that identity?

PJ

Physical Reality and Identities

2008-04-04T07:00:00.001-07:00

Following on the previous, but split-out to a new topic for clarity:

Now, the problem with psychic ability is that people you talk to always expect you to somehow be working with the same sense of reality they are, and merely to know a lot of secrets. I look back on the early days of RV in public, when it was mostly represented by insane people like Dames, and how everybody talked about viewing your own death and God and every imaginable target like it was just so fun and viewers were tough but still perfectly ordinary people, excepting their occasional omniscience, which mysteriously could not be found in those claiming it and selling it.

It's such a fairy tale. Anybody viewing seriously for a good length of time is definitely going to cease being that perfectly ordinary person. If they don't, then whatever they're doing isn't viewing. Of course, if they're cool, they will perfect the art of "acting" normal, so to others it is not apparent that their entire way of looking at reality has shifted a zillion times until their whole framework of what is real and what is alive would be incomprehensible to most people. But to pretend that the process does not radically affect fundamental belief systems about reality, about identity, about time, is to simplify it to the point of absurd. I think the reason there are so few longterm viewers is because the psychological impact of it is more than nearly everybody's willing to adapt to, so people just fall by the wayside, the chronic cognitive dissonance gets resolved by their instantly walking away from it, sooner or later.

Viewing, in MY experience of it anyway--although spontaneous 'esoteric experience' has some part of this with me too I admit--gradually tends to dissolve a lot of the assumptions about reality, and depending on one's experiences with it, that can impact the area called "identity".

Identity is arbitrary. And, it's share-able. It's a collection of information, no different in some respects than an event or a complex object.

Whether something is perceived "as" an identity depends on the psychic in question. If you hold firmly to yourself (as is considered, historically, 'the way, truth and light' for remote viewing), then when you look at, say, a tornado, or Ganymede, you will mostly be aware of all that destructive windpower, or that big hunk of ice-ball in the sky. Because in official RV, nobody gives a damn whether these things are alive and aware. Nobody really wants to know what Ganymede is like. They want to see on paper that it's a space object of ice because that matches the known feedback. The whole issue with identity tends to freak people out, even plenty of viewers I know. They aren't sure if they should consider it possession, or what; many consider it 'dangerous', to work like that. I consider it awesome and fascinating.

If you allow your identity to flow, and to share, then it might be different, like it has been for me. You may find that you ARE the tornado, a nearly ineffable experience, or that you are sharing your perception with Ganymede, as if IT is remote viewing YOU, as a mutual shared experience. If you fall into a zen sort of merge with a metal recycling bin, you may momentarily share 'some degree of awareness'--and the addition of yours may 'add' to that of the MRB's to allow this to happen.

But when you are done, it makes you an Animist. That word until now has mostly meant a religious perception that "god is in everything" - trees, rocks, birds, people, whatever. My interpretation of it is slightly more wholistic, mostly that I don't really have a definition of 'god' to fit the western perspective to start with--if we're going to use that word to mean 'consciousness' or 'awareness' then I'm ok with it. But I believe that even non-autonomous, non-self-aware "things" have 'awareness'. It is just of a different degree than we have. (We are really complex entities, in some respects.) Whether a psychic has enough "flexible identity" to allow other identities to join theirs, or merge/overlap, is what seems to drive "how" the psychic will perceive that thing (or person, or entity, or planet, or tornado, etc.).

And like everything else in the universe, identities are energy. Like trees, dining tables and televisions, they are 'collections of energy' operating as a singularity: a 'thing' that is an 'identity'. I'm PJ, that is a table, there is a tree, that's my TV--what's the difference, except that I am seemingly autonomous and self-aware, and the tree is seemingly NOT autonomous, and whether it is self-aware I have no idea but I suspect moreso than humans suspect, and the TV is not self-aware (I believe) but does have some degree of 'awareness' simply because all its physical components are comprised of 'consciousness', which is a property of the vibrating energy that creates mass. The "degree of awareness," and whether it moves into self-awareness (which is simply a high-degree), and the "degree of autonomy," which I suspect is simply a higher number on the awareness chart also, is most of what separates us. That, and that I am mobile in the frequency-bandwidth we consider physical reality, within which I have opposable thumbs.

So I can chop down that tree and seemingly impose my will upon all those things. That does not mean they are not identities of their own, merely because I have more autonomy and mobility than they do. A sewing machine has a destiny for which it was designed just like a human does. All things long for evolvement, even seemingly inanimate objects. Inanimate doesn't mean unaware. It merely means not-biological and not-communicative within the bandwidth of physical reality. When humans focus in a different way, they are able to 'connect' with such things, and with the addition of their awareness, gain some understanding of that seemingly inanimate object and whatever 'awareness' it actually does have.

I learned this by accident, not by viewing, and managed to 'magically fix' a sewing machine as a result of truly understanding, for the first time, its role and its potential. By convincing it that I could help it find that potential, and selling us both a vision of how awesome and powerful it could be in my world, how useful to my life, if only it worked, it suddenly did, after hours of crying frustration on my part. Sure, skeptics will rightly point out that I have no proof I didn't just PK the machine in some fashion, but some of that is being self-centered, I think; I attribute consciousness to everything being composed of it, so I consider all changes to be 'joint ventures' between my intent and the focus.

Some Seth-ian and ACiM folks might suggest that since reality reflects me, it was only me that changed. I would agree with that, however, I think recognition and respect for everything around me is part of recognition and respect for myself. Recognizing that I, on some level, worked with energy to mutually create a given thing, does not imply that the thing "doesn't exist," it only implies that it is a part of me. I believe that framework should empower people to recognize how fabulous reality is, to see the profound significance of symbol in sidewalks, and sliding glass doors. Instead it often causes people to devaluate and dismiss everything around them as 'fake illusion' while they try to 'transcend' it.

Thus far in life, every surprisingly-cool thing I have ever pulled off, from occasional PK to plenty of RV, has been a side effect of genuinely appreciating and granting respect , whether informally and I knew what it was, or formally in RV when I didn't know what it was. Gratitude goes a long way.

Some magicians do experiments where they attempt to commune with a given elemental. Some monks do experiments where they attempt to commune with a small stone. What is the difference? The stone happens to fall within the red-bandwidth of the rainbow of soul, within the frequency grouping we call physical reality. So we can see and touch it, unlike the 'elemental'. But maybe the stone IS an elemental: it is simply one within our spectrum. They are both "identities". The physical or other detail is its own question. But they are no less identities than a tree or a person. They simply don't have the same complexity, intensity, and degree of 'awareness' that humans do.

And we are the elementals of larger awareness. When we merge with something less-aware, it's a downright religious experience for it, to share in our "expanded consciousness". When we merge with something more-aware, it's a downright religious experience for US, to share in its "expanded consciousness."

So in addition to all the "entities" which have "identities" -- from humans to aliens to shamanic creatures to astral entities -- we also have the situation of reality, composed of energy, of which consciousness is an inherent part, a whole vibrating, cycling universe of awareness. In my world, although I don't operate like this except when working on psi or philosophy, everything has some degree of awareness, and on the whole, no matter the degree or nature of it, I consider that "thing" -- that metal recycling bin, that tree, that television -- and, that moon, that tornado -- to be an 'identity' of sorts.

Not your average interpretation of 'identity' I agree. But that is mine. And because all things are an 'identity' to some degree, if I add enough of my own consciousness to the mix, I can perceive 'as' them or 'through' them or 'with' them -- not just OF them. Not just from the perspective of a human looking on. But from the perspective of a living universal translator, that can "sit in on or share with" nearly anything.

Now when I choose to access a given identity -- let us say 'the target' is that tree, or my TV, or a tornado, or a moon -- is it merely a matter of finding the beat pattern and place on the sine-wave that their vibrating energy inhabits, and somehow getting your attention there?

PJ

Frequency, Dimensions and Entities

2008-04-04T07:00:00.000-07:00

The next few posts may not make much sense, because I'm using the blog to think-on-paper and try and work through something chewing on the back of my brain. (Ewwww.) Too many things at once that complicate it yet they all sorta relate. Must wade through them in text so I can eventually re-read and then better put the pieces together. I will try and keep each major topic-group together in a separate post, then when I've got them all down, I'll post on the REAL question that they all relate to.

In my perception during my Bewilderness era, just about everything came down to vibrating energy and different frequencies, different beat-patterns of the sine wave of a given frequency, etc. Probably to physicists this all makes perfect sense. To me, it just meant an infinite number of probabilities, possibilities, realities, energies, entities, identities, timelines, etc. I called it "Jungian Stew," the universe I was just one tiny piece of carrot in the midst of, swirling around as it boiled and bubbled (in toil and trouble, as the witch's brew song goes)--confusing even on a good day; crazy-making on bad ones.

I haven't got any answers when it comes to entities and aliens and other realities and past/future times and so on. I know what I experience. Sometimes there is some consistency there. That may be more about me or my interpretation than the things I experience. Sometimes there is not consistency. To this day I have the same question that I had 13-15 years ago: what do all these thinhgs have to do with one another?

How does this tie into the bizarre situation of 'time' seeming to move in every direction, not just the one we know in this world, and of 'reality' seeming to be basically infinite, limited only by attention, observation, awareness?

Because for me, all these things seemed to come either through the same doorway, or state of mind, or generally the same timeframe, I kept waiting to see if it'd be clear, eventually, how they related to each other.

Why did the light-beings and the cat-eyed lizard guys and the greys and the blondes and the tall red-dusky sorts etc. seemed to be different, with different agendas in some cases, but some working together in other cases? But that's the EASY ones: those, at least, all fall into the 'alien' category. Simple. Let me put a label on that little file-folder. "These are aliens." I feel better now.

Now there's the creature kind of like a human but all brown and with a face that sticks out sorta like a horse's. Then there's the creature that vaguely reminded me, in form only, of one of the characters in the later-levels of the first version of the videogame DOOM: about 70% of its body is legs, as if there are two knee points instead of one, and the leg goes up and then bends back downward toward the hip, creating giant 'haunches'. That one had a fine grey and white pinstriped skin all over, and a human face, though it was odd, with a dominant center of thin face, reminding me vaguely of a few jewish men I've known. The eyes were terrifyingly feral-but-intelligent. Nature creatures fall in here, like the dryads and so on. Those are what I call the 'shamanic' creatures. I've seen tons of different kinds of these, but my brain (I finally concluded) can't "hold the pattern" until I've seen them repeatedly, just because they're so different I guess. Can I call those shamanic? Sure. Let me make another folder here... alrighty. That category is all sewn up.

Then there's the creatures of the Aethyrs. These start with archetypal occult creatures (I suppose), like the one that had the bottom half of a male human, the upper half of a female human, and the head of a ram, with horns, and something on its head, rather like fruit. (To you it is, but to me it is not, and in Truth it is something else, it explained when I asked about that.) Then there are the other archetypal creatures like the incubus and succubus and other human-like (but not-quite-exactly) creatures that you can "feel" astrally (and that can frighten you into paralysis, or use a level of sleep paralysis as opportunity), most of which seem to want our energy (sex, whether direct or abstract, seeming to be the primary means of share/transfer). I call them creatures of the Aethyrs partly because it's mostly occult stuff that talks about these, but also because way-back when human writings had a little more about them, they rather liked variants on the words "Ethers" as if the air itself had layers. OK, this folder is "Aethyrs," and that category is all neat and clean now.

Alrighty. So we've got aliens over in the first corner, and astral entities over there in the second, and shamanic beasties over in the other corner, and me as a human in the fourth. Then we've got the seeming 'light-beings', and whether these fall into the religious/astral (angelic) or alien (pleiadian) category I guess depends on which of them you're talking with.

This is entirely complicated by a few facts, like:

1. Many of these have been around longer than our species.

2. They've been around HERE, albeit not working at wal-mart.

(Wait. If you'd seen the staff at my local super walmart, you could probably argue this point and win, but never mind.)

3. Which means they are less alien than WE are.

But the real brain-crunching part comes from the following:

You can access any or all of these "identities" -- 'doons, as I used to call them in my early days -- through the same 'doorway of consciousness'. Although some seem to "intrude upon our physical reality," that is usually temporary, and often doesn't need to be repeated, since it appears implants allow a bilocation ability that makes actually parking a craft next to your neighbor's Volvo unnecessary. And, it's not unusual that people with experience with any one of these 'categories' of creatures, eventually has experience with the others.

Because they all come through the same doorway for us (generally), it's pretty difficult to figure out what separates them from one another.

Maybe everything has its own physical reality just like we do, in its own frequency; maybe the aliens are nothing more than those 'closer to our frequency' than others, so better able to be here physically or affect us physically etc.

Whether the so-called aliens understand the issues with time and dimensions--and all those other entities--I don't know.

I wonder, is accessing 'the homeland' of a given type of entity, merely a matter of frequency? Finding the beat pattern and place on the sine-wave that they inhabit, and somehow getting your attention there?

PJ

Alien NLP

2008-04-03T06:26:00.000-07:00

There have been many times that either in dreams, visions, or other esoteric experience someone else has either said to me, or heavily implied, that I was -- well, something distinctly individual and special, the word varies and sometimes I don't recall the word if it's a dream and I awaken, but it has some singular and semi-religious connotation. Usually it is some variant of--or something that gives the impression of--prophet, saint, etc. I personally suspect this is human ego on some level.

The other day I was watching multiple segments of this guy's "Abduction Account." It is pretty interesting; I take it more seriously than many I've heard. Of course, thanks to Bewilderness I have my own framework for all this, of a sort--retrospectively at least, I didn't have one at the time--which probably skews how I interpret other peoples' accounts.

Anyway, somewhere around part 3 I guess it was--I'm not sure as I fell deeply asleep during part 4, suggesting I was probably in denial, gotta get back to that--he says the aliens are having a hard time with him and he's ready to punch them when one walks in and looks at him and says to the others something like, "This is the prophet."

Two interesting things happened then that weren't obvious (I don't think) to the guy telling it. The first is that he accorded the man who said it a lot more respect than the others. The second is that he reduced (greatly) his probability of physically freaking out.

Which seriously led me to wonder if that whole part was a setup to begin with. "It worked," is what I thought, on hearing it. It reframed it for him, in an NLP context; the situation's overall equation changed, because the inner variable--him--was affected by this, even though nothing else changed.

There is no reason to think that the various entities/aliens that interact with humans are all morons. Basic human psychology is not rocket science, to say the least. And in the state of mind when we are interacting with them, it seems a little closer to the emotional surface and a little farther away from the ordinary surface of mind that we consider reality 'here', which I suspect may make us slightly more vulnerable to that kind of thing as well.

I'm a skeptic at heart. That's why when I do bulk doubleblind dowsing I also throw in targets like "My name is Melissa." If I get these wrong, I have to take positive answers for "Am I being monitored for intell purposes" or "Are there really people living on Mars like my session implied" with a grain of salt. (Let's just say that a good deal of dowsing has left me a skeptic as to the success rate of binary models for psi. I think it's do-able, but I can also easily see why RV took precedence over all forced-choice formats.)

In an "interactive situation with other identities" as I would call this, I would later ask myself:

1 - is there any reason for them telling me something which might not be true?
2 - do I have any reason to 'believe' anything or everything they tell me?
3 - if they told me something different or opposite, would I believe that too?

Because I notice a curious thing about 'doons of any kind, whether they're aliens or entities or god-only-knows-what-else: if they say something grand about you, one is prone to not only believe it, but to instantly bestow some level or trust or respect upon the one uttering it.

If it weren't so predictable it'd be embarrassing.

Now I'm not saying this guy is not "the prophet" or whatever. My comments are about me, not about him, it's just that his account made me think of all this.

I'm saying that having had kinda similar frameworks of experience, and more than once, and in different genres of experience, I question whether this is some fundamental truth--or some beautiful, hypnotic experience which not only served their purpose for that moment, but actually set this guy's psychology up to share his experience and all the different things they told him. (At which point maybe he became the prophet. As if there can only be one.)

In business you'd have to pay someone as a spokesperson. In intelligence you'd have to pay them or monitor them to see they didn't get wild, I imagine. In religion, people are driven to share their stories with others for internal reasons, mostly the feeling of importance, whether of the subject or themselves or both.

But in esoteric experiences, all it seems to take is one convincing identity to tell you that you're something special--even if the identity is the bad guy, humorously!--to later provide the effectiveness of business and intelligence combined with the internal drive of religion. A star is born, not necessarily because we were destined, but because we were able to BELIEVE that we were destined to 'be someone' after they told us so.

Humans tend to believe anything they say, because we have a complete vacuum of experience or evidence to the contrary, and because when with them, we seem to be in a state of mind that is highly suggestible. If I believed everything an entity or alien has told me or that some esoteric experience has showed or implied to me, I'd probably be totally crazy by now, convinced of some glorious spiritual calling for my people for which I alone was qualified to serve. I just can't take the 'doons, or myself, that seriously.

He points out (in part 6) that communication was telepathic, and he has a hard time understanding how they could ever lie, since he could "see" or understand their brains and vice-versa.

I don't know. That's a good point. In bewilderness I had the argument from others that they were lying to me or appearing to be something different. I really don't have an answer to any of it. I guess I just have some fundamental need to question myself, and his account tapped into that insecurity of mine.

PJ

Grafting-on to God

2008-03-22T13:34:00.001-07:00

Sometimes I've known a person, let's say a woman who was wronged by a man, who was so hurt by the experience that de-facto all men became bad. Evil macho abusers who lived solely to Keep Women Down, unless of course they were white men, in which case they are additionally guilty by race-proxy of approximately every crime of mankind toward one another since the dawn of time. (I should call it the President Syndrome: like whoever is sitting in the Big Chair at any given moment, they are considered daily freshly-guilty of voodoo baby eating, impending environmental annihilation and the wanton destruction of mankind -- and all this before 9am each morning.)

Humans tend to generalize, which itself is not bad, unless applied as a limiting stereotype, which can be. In the case of people who've been hurt by something, this tendency seems more common.

So for example, while not all former czech, long-haired canadian linux nuts are exasperating, the fact that my ex fits that description means that every other man who might is probably not going to get a fair deal from me. I recognize this. Like some kind of Pavlovian Romance Syndrome, it'll never be otherwise, c'est la vie.

Church and Hypocrisy

Back in the days when I sometimes attended church, one of the things I found interesting--because of my general sociology and psychology interests--was how people tend to "blur" the actual issues of church itself (the human social construct) and God (the divine energy with which some people have a 'relationship').

For example, people who had left the church, would sometimes say something to me like, "Well yes, that is because the people there are such hypocrites!" (This should be a given, since at least some people everywhere tend to be; why should church be any different.) But on talking with them, what became clear was that they had not actually just left attending church. Their prayer, their reading, their focus in general related to God, had usually also vanished or nearly so.

The irony here is that the relationship with God is for them, and for God; it has nothing to do with what some other person(s) at church are like. But they grafted on to God their disgust at the social situation.

Religion vs. Spiritual, and 'Agnostics'

Now most people will say--in today's world this is becoming almost a stock answer--"I'm not religious, but I consider myself spiritual." If the person actually IS spiritual; if they spend as much attention or focus, prayer or whatever, on the subject of the divine when on their own (or more) than when in church, then that makes sense.

But many of the people I've known to say this, it's kind of an evasion. Much like 'agnostic', which technically only describes a person who 'doesn't know whether there is a God or not', usually that's not so much an issue of indecision as an issue of not giving a damn either way. As a former agnostic who cared, I see the difference.

And as someone who no longer goes to church--because none of them around me support my personal theology--but who spends a decent amount of time praying and thinking about such things, I see the difference.

All of this is only prep material for the actual point though, which is this: the behavior of people in a church has nothing to do with God.

Remote Viewing Had To Be In Here Somewhere, Of Course

This is typical... and human. For example, I've seen plenty of people too disgusted by the online remote viewing field's issues to bother viewing, because their emotional turn-off simply carried over into the entire subject. I'm sure this can be applied to nearly any topic or issue.

But now getting back to the subject...

Church as a Governmental Construct

Historically, The Church (note the capitals) has had and been a problem in several key ways. Not counting the minor detail of going forth and killing people in the name of love and forgiveness (...), there's a whole lot of financial, political, social, personal and other power-trips involved in the 'structure' of ANY church--which is, at base, a "socio-spiritual governmental construct"--enough of it to make this history and this tendency difficult for some people to overlook or forgive.

The Church--and most every church--has also done an untold amount of good, of course. But the zillions of good works done by individuals, no matter how much more prevalent if sheer numbers are what counts, are generally personal-sized moments of compassion and assistance. For sheer media and enduring legacy, it's hard to compete with the global-sized screwups that "leaders" of ANY governmental-construct can pull off.

As most of this has been made possible in part by the creative theocracy of doctrine and dogma, it goes without saying that all of that is colored by the same emotion.

As a result of Church being, by nature, a governmental-construct, and as a result of its least charming qualities being its most famous stereotypes, and as a result of various doctrines and dogmas supporting both of those, over time I've met more and more people who range from disinterested in religion to fervently against it.

I know people who almost rabidly hate the church, sometimes any church, and by extension, everything about the doctrines that the church(es) hold dear.

Theological Identities - Mine

One of the most mind-crunching things about genuine spiritual experience is that it often has the inconsiderate problem of not fitting into any of the pre-made boxes our culture has designed for it. If it did, my experiences would be things like, say, being of white light, with wings, sitting on clouds, playing harps, and spouting Official Doctrine.

The closest I've come to light beings appeared to be aliens.

The closest I've come to an angel was my blue eyes of soul/faith experience. The only ref I find to this in literature is in occult works, following an Abyss experience (which I also had, appears to be archetypal), in some works it's called the Holy Guardian Angel.

A number of seemingly spiritual identities--or some which had such profound physical and emotional effects I considered them spiritual, one I wondered if it was Archangel Michael--look just like one of the main identities of my 'four elementals of soul'... which also look like The Nordics (alleged aliens)... ok, let's just go with saying this is, at best, a confusing experience-set.

And then there's the creatures, both the little ones and the 'helpers', like I talked about in The Dark and Fiery Coup. And then there's the (demon-like?) creature I talked about in The Immortal. And then... well you know, I could go on for hours, even with the maybe 5% of my experiences I actually have written down and posted somewhere on the internet, which involved other identities.

I onced merged with the number four. It was sex of the spirit. To say this was 'abstract yet fundamental' would be the understatement of the century; I don't begin to have words to describe it. Also, I once slightly merged psychically with a metal recycling bin. Who needs drugs? So even outside the things we assume are merely 'spiritual' -- and this is only because "we can't see them," since if we could SEE the identities we consider spiritual, we'd probably consider them something else, when you think about it -- it is all a bigger cast of characters than most would imagine.

The cosmology of critters, whether demonic or divine, whether local spiritual homeboys or foreign aliens or "inorganics" as Casteneda called one grouping, is very big, and very confusing. Some religions simplify this: everything is Jesus, or it's evil. End of story. I can't really deal with that kind of polarity though. So I'm left simply accepting that there's a long list of stuff that is pretty confusing and I have no real idea what it is, or what it means.

Sometimes I find myself 'tempted' by cat-eyed lizard guy type of aliens (as I think of them, maybe they're entities, who the hell knows?) and usually find myself standing feet planted, legs apart like a sailor, chanting loudly, "I am of Michael!" at them. I always figured this meant Archangel Michael since I've always been drawn to him and used to be a total nut about him, chanting nightly and praying intently and so on. But it turns out that in the Urantia book, Jesus is actually assumed to be an identity which, prior to the whole dwelling in a body thing (and we see how well THAT worked out for him, according to legend anyway...), was allegedly named Michael. Seriously. So there are people who call Jesus Michael. But wait... it turns out the word 'Jesus' is like, the Greek translation of Yeshua, which is actually Joshua -- so some people call Jesus Joshua. Is anybody else confused yet... I suppose you might say as long as they're talking to him, HE probably doesn't have an identity crisis, and psi "intent" being what it is, one assumes their prayers are reaching the right divine post office box.

I really don't know what I'm talking about in all those dreams and OBEs where I find myself yelling that. To me at the time it's simply an overpowering "devoted to / respect for / disciple of" sort of feeling. If it turns out there are 1001 spiritual entities called "Michael," I'd be hard pressed to know exactly which one I was talking about. Michael just seems like THE ultimate authority when I find myself in that state of mind; it doesn't really feel like I'm referring to one of a zillion guys who live on the hill, because rather it's more like, the name feels as penultimately-singular as the word "God".

Mary and Jesus

Now, I once had an experience where I 'met' Mary. As in, the mother of Jesus. And I once had an experience where I 'met' Jesus. Now this would be all well and fine, with a couple of small details, being that:

a) I am not a Christian, and

b) I didn't even believe in Mary as anything more than some woman who had Jesus (I wasn't raised catholic, so had no affiliation with her at all), and

c) In all my years as a christian, I prayed fiercely, constantly, to "better understand the jesus thing," only to finally realize that for years the answer had been, "a holy man, but not at all what the construct of religion has made him out to be." So I didn't really even buy the standard theology about him, which was complicated by:

d) I think there is sufficient archeo-/anthropo-logical evidence, as well as viewing work (not official RV since there's no hard feedback), to suggest that the human Jesus didn't actually die on the cross and he and his mom lived out the rest of their lives quite happily in another city and were buried in crypts still considered in that region to belong to them.

So let's recap: No christianity, no Mary, no belief in Jesus as more than a holy man, and no belief he died on the cross "and was resurrected"--that has to be the important part, since everybody dies, obviously!--suffice to say that my belief systems simply DO NOT SUPPORT the standard theology of Christianity.

But I met Jesus, and Mary, in spiritual experiences, and they are the most mind-blowing, powerful, real experiences imaginable. They literally shifted my perspective overnight. I can't even just say I respect them, only "such a degree of AWE it approaches healthy fear, yet understanding of innate goodness that is nothing to fear" starts on describing it.

So if Jesus wasn't the guy that official theology packages him as--and I do not believe he was--then who did I meet? How did I 'know' it was 'Jesus' at the time? And the same question goes for Mary. Some might say, "Well obviously he was, your experience proves that," but to that I would say, "If praying fiercely for years and getting a pretty clear and ever-stronger intuitive answer doesn't mean anything, then this is all pointless anyway." In my view, the only dichotomy is that the answer I got wasn't what I suspected, and doesn't support the power politic of our culture. And that would be all fine if it weren't for the dilemma that DESPITE this, I still managed to encounter both of those identities, spiritually.

My friend ML has a theory about this. She believes that although they began as individuals, that gradually the hundreds, thousands, millions, by now billions, of people devotedly praying to them, crying to them, pouring massive energy their whole lives into them, have created thought forms that are more real than real--literally, they are alive and powerful in a way that goes way beyond anything we as humans can currently understand. This is to say, that these identities are "based on" the original identities, but are vastly more than that, both in complexity and in power. They are divine and powerful and even godlike in a fashion, but they are not merely "the soul of the dead humans" we knew on earth.

So far, this is about the best framework I can use for the subject. I know that the Jesus and Mary I met 'spiritually' are real; I believe that the Jesus and Mary who lived on our planet were regular, if highly spiritual, people; but I am not 100% certain what these two seemingly distinct yet intertwined aspects of each identity have to do with each other.

It is, much like the aliens vs. entities dilemma, mostly just "damn confusing."

Theological Identities - In General

Now one of the things I notice about how people around me deal with religion, goes back to the start of this essay, and the issue with projecting feelings about church onto God. Since most of my friends tend to be brainiacs, it's not surprising that they've already done plenty of thinking-outside-the-cross about religion. (Yes, I might burn in hell for coming up with that pun.)

One thing I note is how many of them dislike, if not actually "rabidly despise", organized religion, The Church or any church, etc. They point out, and usually rightly, the number of problems with the doctrine and history and likely legitimacy of plenty of the dogma that is used to 'support' the worship or relationship with these identities.

What I see but can't understand though, is why they have forcibly "grafted-on to God" their issues with the human socio-governmental construct of church. Yes, I can agree that the crusades sucked, that half the OT is originally Sumerian, that most the 'divine workings' in the OT are probably basic science people forced into the framework of a divine hand (and in some unexplained-so-far cases, possibly technology more mundane than divine), but that is all about the church, the doctrine -- the human constructs, in other words.

It is not about God, or Jesus, or Mary, or Archangel Michael. All the resentment and disparaging cynical opinions thrown at these identities come from issues related to church or humans -- NOT issues related to THEM.

In my own experience, these things exist as surely as my car and my computer, but less physically--although even more intensively on the occasion when I bother feeling connected. I don't have any issue with them as spiritual identities. I believe in them completely and I have absolute faith in their divinity and goodness and all that kind of thing.

But if I say this publicly, people assume -- whether they are religious or anti-religious -- that I am obviously accepting of all the constructs of formal theology, or I wouldn't believe in them. That if I talk to Jesus or Michael or God or Mary or whatever, that I have "bought into" the tenets of organized religion, and a couple thousand years (or more) of stupidity that to a great degree comes with that doctrine. In other words, that I am "religious".

Even some intelligent people don't seem like they are able to intellectually (let alone experientially) grasp that Jesus-Mary-Michael-God as divine identities, or personal experiences, are completely unrelated to -- or at the least, "not constricted by" -- the theological framework that The Church puts them into. They figure that the identities don't exist. Or, that they do, but they suck as much as the church does.

It is a shame, because I know how powerful and divine these identities are, and I believe that a "relationship with them" would greatly improve any person, kind of like how having a truly awesome role-model and insightful friend does, times about a billion. But they are unable to allow themselves such a thing, because their intellectual side is so busy kicking the tires of the human construct of church and its dogmatic BS, that their intuitive side is unable to allow the relationships that would truly feed their soul.

They make the divine identities in theology the "representatives" for everything the humans do. Ironically, dying-for-human-sins-when-innocent is the very model of the jesus legend [and many prior], and in a reputational fashion, you might say this continues to happen daily.

They have, in short, grafted-on to god all their problems with humans. It's understandable, but I respect people who don't want to be limited by biases that our culture gives us -- whether it teaches us those, or whether we develop those biases through our rejection of what it teaches as an alternative, are no different. Either way, it is still a sort of unthinking bias that has us living our spirituality by default, or ignorance, or don't-give-a-damn-ness, rather than a genuine, truth-seeking intuitive awareness.

Experience with Divine Entities

The issues with people's comprehension of the difference between genuinely spiritual, vs. religious, makes it difficult for me to talk about some of my experiences, because I know they're going to be wildly "interpreted" by people with so many pre-existing belief systems.

It's like knowing that if you post the color blue, it's going to look red to some, purple to others, and black to still others, which makes the idea of posting blue seem rather pointless, if you see what I mean.

So I'm taking the trouble to write this down and mention something about my "spiritual relationship" with "divine entities" because it ought to be mentioned. I don't talk about it much because I feel like it'd just be misinterpreted anyway. But I feel it would be dishonest to not mention it ENTIRELY, as if it didn't exist, when in fact these entities play powerful roles in my inner life. Not as often as they should but that is my doing, not theirs. They have always--always without exception--been present and helpful when called.

When I said in a previous post that the characters on the TV show 'Supernatural' had 'the spiritual depth of Doritos' it's because I've been involved in enough powerful experiences, both good and bad, both with others and alone, to have some very strong feelings about the absolute necessity of an intensely personal relationship with God, or what one perceives to be God or some Aspect of it. What people choose to call it, and how they model it--as 'higher self' or 'holy guardian angel' or 'god on a cloud', is beside the point. The "spiritual technology" is via "personal relationship". How any person chooses to frame or model that relationship is entirely up to them. If they consider some part of their soul linked to something divine and they relate to that by imagining absorbing a red triangle, then hey, more power to 'em, whatever works. The point is the 'relationship'.

Anything that portrays people working with ANY kind of "powerful identities" and does not include that "relationship with the divine" element, is profoundly miseducating the world. I feel I can assure you that anybody who walks into serious ceremonial magick, or serious spiritual warfare in a christian sense, without a profound connection to self-via-God, is going to be someone's lunch. On the outside, they'll still look like the person you knew, but on the inside, their energy will basically be feeding other intents, and their walking personality will become a shell of what its true potential is. (Then again, since so much of our culture seem to be pretty shallow anyway, it's not like most people would notice.)

My Divine

Jesus as a spiritual, divine entity, is real. Unimaginably powerful. Love so pure it's like nothing else.

Mary as a spiritual, divine entity, is real. Unimaginably powerful. In my experience, though I'm sure the possibilities are endless, she was more like a strong protective mother, not the sweet innocent virginal sort; more 'mama bear' in spirit form.

Michael, as a spiritual, divine entity, is real. Unimaginably powerful. In my experience, a hard focus for the typically associated blue-ray things (honor, discipline, protection, and especially "faith"), with a curious tendency, whenever I get too "into" him, to literally pick up my attention and move it back to 'God', as if he feels I'm worshipping him and that's inappropriate.

And God, of course, as something we really don't have any good words for, is real. That oughtta be a no-brainer. I once spent a year as an Atheist. I thought. Every day, I ended up apologizing to God for not believing in him. I finally realized I was doing this, had a good laugh at myself, and realized that God is so innately a part of me that no amount of conscious denial, based on intellectually wanting to be 'cool' enough to disbelieve solely because religion is stupid and my ego doesn't want to be seen as stupid by other ego-centric intellectuals (...) was going to do anything about but inhibit me.

Now whether every person is capable of experiencing such things, I don't know. It's possible that genetics, and even natural intuition, might have something to do with how we physically, mentally, emotionally, psychologically, process the "God" or "divine entity" experience. And it's obvious to me at least, that a lot of people's spiritual experience is hugely inhibited by their prejudices -- either for a given religious framework, or against religion altogether.

I suspect that less grafting-on to God of personal bias, might allow more intuitive-experience of the divine, in ways, and forms, and identities, and situations, which are deeply impactive, but might not fit in the easy categories we expect.

I like the phrase from the movie The Fifth Element, "I serve life." I consider Archangel Michael my primary model. My internal metaphysics are fairly consistent but outside that realm, inexplicable and often confusing. They start with an Inner Guide sort of model, but are strongly grounded in something with multiple aspects... I have not been nearly as good at interaction as I should be, but now that I'm going to have some more time in my life, I hope to resolve that.

But my relationship with the divine includes such religious entities as Mary and Jesus as well. That I am not a christian, that I don't even believe 99.9% of christian theology (to include a good deal of hebrew stuff), is beside the point. I'm capable of interacting with the identities without needing them to be a given thing (or not) based on what folly humans have built around them. They exist, totally apart from the whole religion thing.

In case anybody else ever got the idea that even IF they felt the need to disregard the human religion stuff, they could still be OPEN to spiritual interaction with divine identities related to that religion, I thought I should have at least one post supporting the idea.

Russell Targ

2008-03-20T00:34:00.000-07:00

Russell has a new book coming out. Headsup for those into his stuff.

http://www.espresearch.com/blindbiker/

Were-World

2008-03-19T07:48:00.000-07:00

So for a week I was intensively writing... I'll get back to that shortly, soon as I get off work. It's typical paranormal fiction. Were creatures and so on. And then the last three days I watched some TV shows on amazon unbox -- three episodes of "New Amsterdam," about a soldier in the 1700s made semi-immortal by a native cure, and half a dozen episodes each last night and the night before of "Moonlight," about a young (90) vampire with O The Drama angst and his (of course) hot human sidekick. This is about ten days--well, nights and weekends--of being almost entirely obsessed with creatures that do not exist.

We assume.

It occurs to me that humans, despite that I'm one of them so I wish I were more optimistic about the lot, are unusually oblivious to the world around them. I've forgotten--and watched people forget--uncomfortable experiences within seconds. I've had experiences in full-on "3D and Dolby Sound" that I wrote off as either imagination or 'a dream' instantly because they didn't seem to fit into The World According To Consensus Reality. I've disbelieved accounts from people I would trust to tell me anything with truth, simply because I couldn't wrap my brain around it. I've watched people with lots of psychic experience be unable to accept someone else's because it was a little different. Our minds are Samsonite.

I met a man in person once who was a christian mystic. Unlike the image that brings to mind, of some gentle monk-like fellow, he was pretty different. He was as hard core metaphysical as anyone comes. I don't know how he made those puzzle pieces fit with christianity without running into contradiction in a few pretty major places, but apparently he did. He told me stories, later, of "interactions" let's just call them, with people he considered variant forms of witches and evil. Normally I would have tried not to laugh, but somehow coming from this guy, it seemed completely probable while he was telling it. He certainly had some kind of light in his eyes and intense energy. As a woman, this did little but lead me to a long list of pointedly unchristian ideas about what to do with him. Alas, he moved out of my reality too soon, leaving only the anomaly of my inability to remember his name, which was weird then and weird now.

There's a TV show I've watched on unbox called "Supernatural" which reminds me very slightly of his stories, except the show has a lot of over-violence and horror-gore by my standards; I always regret money spent on it, despite I love the actors and think the premise is good. The show is surreally missing the most important, central point of a true hunter: a relationship with God. Nobody seems to notice the guys on the TV show have the spiritual depth of Doritos. They never pray. They just go around killing people. But it's "all for the good of man" of course.

I can see why the producers would fear the spiritual angle but really, why hunt spiritual entities if you aren't spiritual? If only good and evil were always as black and white as the show makes it seem, rather than infinite shades of blended grey, like some tabby cat of the soul. Stomping out evil always seems easier when you can project it on some specific 'thing' and before you know it, 13 million people are dead allegedly "for the good of man," I suppose. And the heroes do an awful lot of selling their soul to a demon in order to save the life of someone else; as if a true belief in God would see death as so horrible, and as if any true hunter would go consorting with demons for anything at all. It promotes the mythology that they would keep their word, to start with, probably the most dangerous concept on the show.

I once met someone online who told me their father was a vampire hunter. I don't know if that's really so. He seemed a nice enough guy, a bit out there for me, but then again, I've always had the problem that my inner life is more out there than half the extremes, but my outer life is in here with logic and practicality. It looks good on the surface ("All that, yet she's still sane!"), but probably only tears me up in the middle where those opposite parts of me can't seem to mesh. But I digress. I was going to say, this leads me back to the idea I started this post with:

How much around us, do we not see?

UFOs and 'their inhabitants' have been reported since pretty much forever. From every corner of the earth. From multiple witnesses. From impeccable witnesses. Hell, one UFO sighting resulted in like a million people, over a dozen video tapes and of course much camera evidence for which we're supposed to conclude 'mass hallucination'. Because you know, camcorders hallucinate too. Despite you'd have to go into John Lilly lalaland of Vitamin K and the Stainless Steel Entities to try and make any case for that, this is apparently the conclusion of Reasonable Men(tm).

Allegedly 10% of the population is homosexual. (So to steal the joke about insanity, think of 9 friends; if it isn't them, it's you.) And yet, unless you're in California or Germany/Sweden it is highly unlikely that more than the tiniest fractional percentage of those are known to all around them in that respect. If we can't even deal with what's around us in perfectly ordinary ways like that, how do we expect to see "supernatural creatures", from the fae to the were to the undead to aliens to whatever else fiction writers hypothesize about, even if it does exist? They'd surely have strenuous measures in place to prevent and deal with exposure, and possibly talents that helped maintain the mystery.

I mean think about it. Allegedly, the reason 'werewolves' came into our cultural mythos is because they would freak out and kill people and they looked like, well, a werewolf. But if in reality they looked more like an ordinary wolf, and if management of the subculture was better so people were not being turned and freaking out daily, if they were capable of not killing, or even not turning, and of killing animals instead, and so forth -- these are the nouveau-fictions that modern writers insert to make the creatures into reasonable and sexy characters rather than monsters -- then there might not be any reason for people to notice them. Add a little mafia-style damage control, and basic human resistance to and denial of anything that frightens them anyway, and it's done.

There might be zero evidence for such things being real. I have not seen any. Ever. I've experienced things that give me opinions about a lot of other stuff, but zero about "alternative creatures", outside of the distinctly paranormal fae-type accounts (and not the kinder-gentler ones either) of a few friends. But my original "argument" with myself, that "it couldn't be real or we would know about it by now," is fundamentally flawed. That's the were variant of the "why aren't UFOs on the White House lawn" argument.

Reality itself seems a lot less... consistent and objective, the more I view and the older I get. Why do viewers I've observed task everything from known-fiction to aliens, but nobody tasks something like vampires and werewolves? I'm simply curious is all, as to why both legend and fiction are so often tasked (out of protocol obviously, for fun) but these, I've never seen done. I know it's far out--so are aliens, entities, Adam and Eve, and even "StarGate's Biggest Secret", all of which are not that unusual as targets in the field already. There's no less feedback on the worlds of fae or were than on anything else esoteric. Just fewer cultural constructs to support how people think about it.

Intuitive Writing and Speaking

2008-03-16T16:58:00.001-07:00

Back in my Bewilderness days, I used to write a lot, emails and typed letters to friends. I would talk about my ideas and theories, a lot of metaphysical stuff. And once in awhile, it would shift into something more 'intuitive' than 'intellectual'.

There are several side effects or concomitant feelings during the time this happens. They don't all happen at once. But at least one is usually present when the writing is what I call intuitive--what others have called "inspired".

1. It feels like it is coming "through" you rather than "from" you. You could call this channeling and some do, but 'information' or 'energy' rather than an 'identity'. (I could argue that identity, information and energy are all the same thing from different perspectives, but not right now.)

2. There is an ineffable feeling of truth with it.

3. Sometimes only one word can have this! Or half a sentence. Or 3.5 sentences out of a paragraph. It is like energy wending through the language--it doesn't necessarily match the phrasing.

4. It is not much different with writing than speaking it.

5. Sometimes an internal gut-level "need" for a feeling of "sound that creates shape" is present. As if sound--even in written words!, but this is much more present with spoken words--actually IS some kind of geometric form, from another perspective.

6. There are side-effects of #5. For example, I would find myself using 3, or 30, or 300, words to say something that I actually have said with about 6 perfectly clearly, but the problem is, it didn't FEEL right. It felt like the "meaning-shape" that English words created was mismatched; the surface intellectual meaning, did not match the literal "shape of truth" that was the words. This could result in whole paragraphs sort of 'getting around to' saying something. I felt on some occasions that I understood why often, metaphysical books seemed like they had too many words, and didn't just say things succinctly. I felt they were facing the same problem--the energy of the 'truth-in-sound' not match the surface-meaning of english words, and so they were trying to pull in enough combination of shape to eventually have at least a fairly decent match.

7. Another side effect was a sometimes overwhelming need to express a certain feeling of shape in sound. I had the sense that one of these shapes was rather like a corner, or an "L" shape. Except that my language has no sound which actually matches this. The closest thing I could find was "K" -- the hard consonant aspect of it -- but that wasn't really right either. Sometimes I had such an overwhelming NEED to EXPRESS that energy that I would find myself quietly saying, "K! Kuh! KKKKKKKKKK!" -- this could happen even when typing something, bizarrely enough. I later talked with a man who'd worked in a mental hospital who told me that he'd encountered severe schizophrenics who had symptoms like that, who would make up stupid phrases that had "Hard consonants" in them (one example he gave was 'f--k a pig!') and say it over and over until they were screaming it. That is really pretty weird. I don't know if it's related but as I think a lot of "mental illness" may be the combination of genuine physical and mental problems mixed with psychic awareness highly distorted, I found that sort of interesting.

8. If in the same state of mind, I sometimes got an intuitive "thread" as I call it about OTHER people's words or writing. For example if I am looking at a paragraph of text, I have sometimes been able to 'feel'--in the same way--that a given word or piece of text, sentence or paragraph, has 'truth' in it. I could feel when it was cold and out of place as if a word had been inserted by someone else or after the fact. I could feel when the 'thread of truth' weakened and vanished. I could feel that sometimes things seemed 'mixed up' as if the sentence had been written with intuitive-truth but then the words had been rearranged.

9. There is this toy, it is a ball-like shape made of a zillion little rubber things. It is like a 'pompon' shape made of something akin to straight rubber band things. They all gather in the middle. I often had the sense that I was in the middle of a shape sort of like that, like I was in the center, and going out from me in every possible direction, was a tiny stream of energy. And I could shift my attention just slightly and I would have a different stream. This reminds me of channeler Jane Roberts, who referred to this feeling as being on a road with many "paths" and being able to choose different ones.

10. Once I had a 'stream of energy' running 'through' me that had 'information', I had to be very careful about the focus. If I had a question, an intent, and got information, it was important that I kind of "got out of the way of it." If I even paid attention to what was coming through as I communicated it, I would become interested in it, or wonder about some part of it. The instant I had that interest, it was as if I slightly changed the direction of the stream, and so the information would move with me. This could result in a rather odd constant shifting of the information's goal of explanation, rather than an essay on a single given topic. I have never shifted OUT of body to allow another identity (to my knowledge), but I assume that would solve the problem. I'm not real fond of that idea personally. I have enough issues with identity and accidental "merge" with others (people, planets, metal recycling bins...) without deliberately inviting that.

11. I have sometimes had this in remote viewing sessions. But it can be only pieces, like for example I can write down a sentence about something and feel that "the last half of that was intuitive."

I was telling a friend about this the other night and I wondered if I had ever written this down. So I just thought I would, before I forget it.

PJ

Wonder Land

2008-03-06T20:40:00.000-08:00

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 26 December 2007

After literally going longer without even *thinking* about Remote Viewing than I have in many eons, I woke up one morning recently with a radical attitude adjustment.

I realized, suddenly, that I don't know anything about it.

I don't mean the subject, the protocol, or 47 other aspects we could wax on about. I mean actually DOING IT. Sure, I can do it technically. I could teach a few formal methods, I've developed a couple fairly unique approaches myself, and there's the 2.7 million variants on "just do it" as well.

What I mean is, I think that every thing I think about RV is a belief system.

A filter I've been too close to see.

An assumption I've been too close to question.

I think the mind automatically tries to backtrack from every observation and experience and come up with a 'why'.

I suddenly felt that everything I THINK I know about performing remote viewing is, in fact, an albatross to the process of actually doing it.

I had the feeling, all the sudden, that viewing sometimes went well despite me, not because of me.

***

My goal for 2008 with viewing is to start over. To pretend I know zero about the doing-it-part, and just let every session be anything it wants to be, without models and structures.

To be as spontaneous as humanly possible.

To put no judgement on the process for now.

To let it be like an artistic movie: something I don't have to understand or agree with. Something that is an art form and a mystery and all that matters is how I feel inside and what it means to me. Which can be different every session, every instant.

No labels. No conclusions. No theories!! Just experience. Just letting it happen however it will.

We'll see what happens.

Novelty

2008-03-06T20:38:00.000-08:00

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 16 October 2007

Just a random thought for the morning. Some background trivia to explain where the thought came from.

Trivia: One of the things that brought up the research into 'intrinsic target properties', was based on human senses, and the way they are much more sensitive to change/novelty than to repetition. (Shannon Entropy: A Possible Intrinsic Target Property [pdf] by Edwin C. May, S. James P. Spottiswoode, and Christine L. James. Journal of Parapsychology Vol. 58, pp. 384-401, 1994.)

Trivia: I think we all have realized that 'changing up' one's RV process, whether method or any other element of the process, often seems to have an initial improved-result-impact. Initially this often leads people to be sure that whatever they just changed is THE ANSWER, FINALLY, but after awhile most viewers realize this is a fairly predictable effect is all--and alas, it does wear off.

Trivia: Cue-ing for data within a session is an issue of novelty. Change a word, a phrasing, a perspective in space or time, or even other more unusual ways of focusing, and you create a 'new cue' that can often prompt new data. A given cue (whether to self or from other) seems to have a lifespan ranging from once to who-knows how many but not infinite "provoked responses" in data form. Dowsing really can bring home how changing a single word can change response, but even in viewing I think most viewers with a little experience figure out how important novelty in cue-ing is. Some degree of the value of a monitor could be in the sheer 'novelty' factor of their cueing based on the live experience, for example.

OK, so humans are more sensitive to change with their body-senses... viewer intuitive response often seems re-set/re-freshed from a change in the prompt/cue... viewer results often seem re-set/re-refreshed from a change in any part of the viewing process. It's all the same dynamic.

Although this is one reason I always recommend people use as many tasking and feedback forms and sources as possible, I hadn't really focused on this aspect of it clearly in my head before.

CHANGE. Maybe deliberately planning a constant change after so many sessions, would be useful. Maybe changing out a few basics even of the personal process such as standard self-cue's and things like that, should be part of that. I've come to this idea before several times over the years so I'm wondering why I quit thinking about it whenever that was, or why it seems novel again. (Heh. The advantage of being an airhead. New ideas every day!)

The funny thing is, this dynamic really seems to hold for everything. For weight lifting building muscle, for eating plans and fat loss, as two examples of stuff I also work on regularly, it always seems like there is an initial effect and then it ramps down to a holding pattern of sorts, where the body fights for homeostasis.

Well the psychology fights for homeostasis like crazy. That's half the psychological challenge with viewing in protocol, is how hard the body/mind fights to regain a 'known' footing/belief system. "Change=death to the psychology," as we've all heard. Yet growth only happens when homeostasis is absent, or as the old baseball saying goes, "You can't steal second with one foot on first."

Maybe when we plan our own viewer development, when we work out managing our own tasking and method and so on, a deliberately randomized set of changes in our process should be part of that. Maybe at the first sign of a few sessions in a row that don't go well, change should be implemented.

This makes me think (ok, now I'm just rambling!) of live sports performance. We are least challenged to develop when we only spar with an opponent on things we know, or do planned drills we expect. It's the sheer novelty of the fight or the game that forces us to adapt and grow. I wonder if literally creating a little utility that lets a viewer put in a variety of options for every component of their viewing (tasking or target source, a dozen diff points in their method-process, various cue-ing they do in-session, etc.) and having it randomized would actually be useful. So like, if you sat down to do an 'exercise', on the spot you'd have a custom, fairly unpredictable combination of elements. Each one would be familiar, so it wouldn't be like losing the consistency of doing-what-you-know, but the combination of them would be random, so it might be more like the novelty-of-the-live-event. Ya think? OK, rambling off, need to get back to work here.

Planets and Remote Viewing

2008-03-06T20:34:00.000-08:00

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 28 May 2007

I sometimes think it's the world's greatest irony that some of the most 'impactive' experiences in viewing are the targets with no feedback.

(Which reminds me I've sometimes wondered if the lack of a decent time window on some taskings actually makes the viewing experience potentially more intense because there is inherently 'more information' in the 'target'.)

Last week TKR's Mission was tasked by Marv, and it was "the lakes on Titan", or something like that. I don't know why, but the stuff on other planets is just so damned interesting. Although I've had some sessions that sucked on planets, I've also had some interesting things, from one years ago on Titan (see that link above), to one on Ganymede I blogged about here (that was more after-session interest), and in the past a couple interesting sessions on Saturn.

Of all the missions TKR has done, some of my faves are their planet-related missions. Like there was "Something on Mars" that I tasked in the early days (years ago), the "Mars Home Plate" that Benton tasked over a year ago, and there are some earth-bound tasks that are directly about anomalies that are pretty fascinating, from The Dropa Enigma to The Metal Ball Mystery, both of which sort of defy 'technology we have/had available, far as we know' and make one wonder about the larger universe around us.

I also sometimes wonder, since I tend to grant "some degree of awareness" to everything, and "identity" to many things most people wouldn't, if planets themselves may have a pretty rocking-sized sentience that might make ours look pretty puny by comparison. Ever since my session with Ganymede I've been wondering that.

Not just about planets, but about targets on a larger scale. How much of what we perceive is about what the target chooses to share with us?

A Primer on AOL

2008-03-06T20:20:00.000-08:00

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 26 May 2007

As most viewers online already know, Remote Viewing semantics are especially at issue on the internet, where words are all people have to work with. Even without issues like social politics or differing approaches to the discipline, even in groups with much in common, viewers still often get lost in the semantics of discussion.

That isn't just the modern world or the internet, of course; this has been an historical problem with parapsychology around the world, perhaps in part due to a severe lack of 'shared experience'-based terminology.

Remote Viewing's terminology is rather colorful. The patchwork history of the nature of anything psychic, and RV's former exploration in science and military, both renowned for their ability to coin complicated terms and no end of acronyms, and RV's modern commercial sales market of the last decade+, which is usually presented in a virtual snowglobe of uber-hip Matrix-Technojargon, all have combined to make RV terminology inconsistent at best, often confusing at the least -- and sometimes funny as hell.

Many viewers know some basic terminology from psychic methods training. But how well they understand it may be another story. Most folks learn this when they are so brand-spankin'-new to the subject that they really wouldn't know what questions to ask, and they are mostly introduced to the level of understanding they are ready for at that moment, which is fairly shallow. Follow-up is the weakest point in the commercial field, so deeper understanding of things doesn't always arrive. As if that isn't enough, what is taught is often in question as well, or at the least, differs greatly between sources.

I've seen some casual usage of terminology that is "gleaned from others," over in the dojo, but is probably not well covered online.

So for the sake of those new to the subject, I'm going to talk a little about one of the common jargon-terms in RV: "AOL."

This is broken into several parts to make it a little easier to get through.

Analytical Overlay, also known as AOL
AOL: The Labels of Conclusion
AOL and Learning Theory
AOL and 'Allowing', AKA "Let it Be"
AOL: Slightly More Complex Considerations
AOL: Slightly More Subtle Considerations
AOL the Temptress
Issues That Worsen or Invoke AOL
AOL from Target Pools
Using AOL Notation During Session
What Matters About Annotating AOL
New Viewers and AOL
When it's Data, it's not AOL
Exercises to Improve AOL Avoidance & Handling
AOL: The Point of it All

Analytical Overlay, also known as AOL

This term was originally used in psychic work to refer to the analysis the conscious mind is always trying to apply to our data.

At the entry level, the first and simplest way to think about this is "labels". Our mind immediately attempts to evaluate and conclude "what something is," and presents us with the highest-level "conclusion" about it. For example, instead of presenting data components such as 'red', 'motion' and 'spinning', our mind might present: "a red car".

Outside of psychic work, this is probably the way we've always needed our info anyway. If a friend is driving up in his car, we don't want to receive the data in 5000 separate components we have to consciously put together before we can even figure out what's going on.

If human mental processing were that slow, we wouldn't have survived the saber-toothed tigers.

AOL: The Labels of Conclusion

We probably do get information about events in 5000 components, but our minds are used to evaluating all that, putting it together for us, slapping a summary on it (Jimmy's car is headed for my driveway at normal speed) and handing us "the label of conclusion".

We rely on this as a norm. But when we begin viewing, we suddenly don't our mind actively and rapidly working to obtain "the labels of conclusion" anymore. In viewing, we seldom have enough information flow at least right-off, for those labels to be accurate. But since this way of mental processing is a lifetime habit, it's a bit of work (to understate it) to change your ways.

AOL and Learning Theory

Let us say, in this over-simplistic (and commonly used) example, that we had the sense of round (the wheels), the sense of motion, the sense of red, maybe even a sense of fun, or of speed, all of which were probably accurate, or likely enough.

Alas, "a red car" is simply wrong as data. If we write down this data, we later compare our session to the feedback photo of two children playing with a red ball and we roll our eyes over how clueless we were. "Well, I got the red," we might tell ourselves glumly.

The worst part of that equation has to do with our learning. It's important that we consciously recognize the data components that we did get accurately, and those we did not, and what processing we applied--which either helped or harmed. That's how we learn, is getting feedback on our process results.

When our session only leaves us with information that doesn't match the target, new viewers especially are prone to just sigh, feel like dismal failures at this psychic stuff, and wander off forlornly, thinking they are a lost cause. That's because most their 'results' are packaged in "labels of conclusion" which do not match the target.

The viewer being able to obtain data at a more 'component' level and record it that way is about the only way a new viewer will get real feedback on what actually "came through," and how they "interpreted" each bit, and how they communicated it. That's when feedback can be applied and the "learning theory" part of practice can kick in and do the viewer some good.

Genuine AOL is a matter of the viewer repackaging or over-translating the information, which can range from a very mild flavoring to radical revision. It's like a bad internet language translator but in concept-shape form. It can be pretty funny at its more extreme levels.

In the example we started with, you might ask why the mind didn't know it was a ball instead of a car. Well, maybe eventually the mind would have. But the initial data in a session is often in small fragments: a sense of reflection, a horizontal motion, a color, a spinning. That is what the mind had to work with, and it did its best at the analytical process.

That's part of the problem, really: there isn't enough information for the mind to use its fabulous tools in the normal way. As Spock (and later Data) used to say on Star Trek, "I have insufficient data for a hypothesis." Our mind is stuck trying to do its job as wonderfully as it has always done it, but under impossible circumstances.

It's up to the viewer to help keep the mind 'open' long enough, and well enough, that sufficient data can pour through prior to expectations filtering or distorting the experience.

Some viewers survive this for about 5 or 10 minutes. They shouldn't even be allowed to view past that: their sessions rock that long and then totally suck thanks to AOL. That's just a visible example of the tenure of their ability to keep the right mental state in place. Up till the point where that expires, they might be amazing. If they could start breaking their sessions up into shorter sessions done more often, they'd probably be better off.

Control Issues and 'Allowing', AKA "Let it Be"

This analytical processing may be somewhat below the fully intentional level, but the impetus for it happening is at the conscious level. It is a matter of training yourself into the "allowing". You must allow the target to be whatever it is, without pressuring yourself in the "need to know", which translates directly into your making the target into what you assume it is instead.

The tendency is pretty much human nature it appears, at least prior to bringing conscious intervention into that process (and possibly is a fight forever). But how often, how quickly, and how severely that is invoked, in my opinion ends up being something like a psychological control issue.

Everybody has some degree of this because our mind has been working with us in that way our entire lives. But some people can't let go of this "need to know". High J's on the ENTJ personality scale probably are a good example; those with major control issues are another. I am exampling the more extreme versions of a trait we all carry, but some a lot more than others. Some people are simply not cut out for this kind of art.

A viewer must be able to relax and let go of at least enough of the need to know, at least long enough to get decent data. That doesn't mean that a viewer is always going to be free of it -- or even ever fully, depending -- it's a matter of degree. It's also a matter of the viewer being able to recognize, in session, when they are falling into this mindset to a high degree, and either let it go, or end the session and come back to it another time.

Like most things in remote viewing, the issues viewers have are echoed in other roles. The same problems with "AOL" in people functioning as taskers and monitors have done a great deal of damage to their viewers and RV's reputation in public media, so it's worth pointing out that AOL--particularly "untreated" AOL let alone fostered AOL--is very damaging to psi work across the board, no matter what role it is played out within.

AOL: Slightly More Complex Considerations

Analytical over-processing of data is really just one of many likely issues in a remote viewing session. There's a long list of internal processing behaviors and filters that affect data as badly or worse than purely "analytical" issues.

To some degree, the term AOL is used as an "umbrella" term to represent what I initially called "Affected Data" about ten years ago. Data can be "affected" in many ways. The reasons this can happen are incredibly numerous, and likely to vary a little depending on the viewer.

The reasons are not just analytical. They can be a result of the sheer novelty of something and not knowing how to translate it, for example. Or, they can be the result of an empathetic emotion from the viewer, or of aesthetic-impact upon the viewer, or other in-session experience that has its own "progression" into other assumptions that are often less logical than emotional.

Some viewers or methods trainers have come up with their own vocabulary of acronyms to describe different possibilities.

AOL: Slightly More Subtle Considerations

AOL as exampled at the beginning of this article, "labeling", is really the easiest, most obvious aspect of the issue. Most AOL when a viewer first begins does come in this form. Or at least, so much of it comes in this form that you don't get much chance to even see the other issues that might be lurking! But with some experience, the example given becomes over-simplistic to say the least.

The most dangerous AOL is not the labeling, because that type, a viewer can learn to recognize pretty easily. The more subtle and nasty forms of AOL usually stem from other sources.

For example, there may be a low-grade AOL regarding the likely 'nature' of the target, possibly based on the tasking source. This might never become strong enough for the viewer to recognize, but it may bias and filter their whole session. This is a bad thing when it makes the data more-wrong, but it can be a worse thing when it makes the data more-right. At least you learn something from being wrong, often. And the AOL drive may give the session a more 'intense' experiential aspect for the viewer, which can result in a greater sense of certainty for sure, and if they do this often enough, the viewer may end up subconsciously biasing in favor of situations where they have some way of knowing or suspecting the target because, plain and simple, it is a lot more fun that way.

There may be a more obvious AOL regarding thinking something in the session is AOL--because the data is just like another target you just had, or just like a movie you just watched, for example, or even, is just like you would have analytically-via-AOL expected it to be (because, ironically, your AOLs from the early session may have been correct). In this case, the analytical assumption is that it IS analytical assumption--an invalidation of the data you're receiving, which is usually just as damaging to a session as anything else. This tends to result in viewers getting wonderful data they "don't write down because they're sure it's AOL," and then they want to kick themselves afterward when they see the feedback.

One of the common causes of AOL once the viewer is getting into the groove of viewing, is the way that information presents itself. The viewer may have a flash visual of something, and they may think that is the target. It might be, but usually, it is not. (Only the viewer can make this call, as best they can.) Usually, it is something in the viewer's mental database of experience that has something in common with the target... but which other than some major aspect (which can be shape, concept, or a combination of factors), has nothing to do with it. (See 'exceptions', later in the article.)

There are pretty much no limits to the possible 'sources' of AOL or 'data-affecting issues'. Every human is unique and every viewer could probably find a dozen new ways.

AOL the Temptress

AOL if recognized and released is usually not all that damaging to the viewer or session. (Obviously, circumstance and details vary.) It may be just a minor point of observation, released and the viewer moves on.

But that mental 'base of assumption' tends to grow, especially if not recognized and dealt with. It can bias the mind toward recognizing only data which fits the filter of expectation, as an early problem. It can literally help create data which fits the expectation, which is a larger problem. Usually though, the mind's ability to creatively configure even what does come in, is more than enough flexibility to "help" the viewer make the session into exactly what they "suspect" -- which translates to what they want, because the lack of closer and not-knowing in a session is psychologically very difficult.

AOL's biggest tragedy in a session isn't usually what it does to the data with which it arrives, but what it does to every "experience" for the viewer which follows. And for sure, attempting to 'surgically remove' AOL from data in retrospect is easier said than done.

Suspicion can function as AOL, including AOL-Drive which is the term some use for when the session is totally driven by some form of assumption, expectation, etc. One of the more insidious things about AOL is that the more of it the viewer gets, the more tempted to follow that road they might be. It feels GOOD to have a 'suspicion' about what something in the target might be, and viewers often unconsciously "retask" themselves on "that-thing-I-suspect" in the middle of a session, shifting the focus away from "the target" and onto "this thing I just perceived or that I think is the target."

Issues That Worsen or Invoke AOL

Knowing your tasker can help invoke AOL in a viewer based on the assumed nature of the tasking. I've suffered that more than once. It's especially insidious if the nature of the target (for example, The World Cup sporting event, people with painted faces, etc.) has something in common with the nature of your AOL (that the tasker tends to task big disasters, terrorism, etc.) because then it "skews your AOLs" or helps create them.

To deal with it: you can use an RV tool like Taskerbot to mix up your tasks, so even if you only have a few, you won't be sure of the source when they are given to you. tbot Tasker allows a super simple entry of nothing more than task numbers for example, for tasks that already exist. It isn't tasking you, it's simply handing the tasks to you in a random order to help increase the blinding factor.

The best way to work against having any expectation at all about the target is (a) the widest variety of task sources or task genres, and (b) experience. Once you've had the chronic experience of having no idea what the hell you were talking about in a session, and you see how assumptions whether gross or subtle messed you up, you get a little better at not coming to a conclusion because you know too well that you have NO IDEA what it might be.

AOL from Target Pools

Familiarity with a target pool can be one of the worst sources of chronic AOL. Target pool AOL is pretty obvious when observing sessions of people suffering it and it's painful even from a distance.

I give this a separate section of its own because any practice utility that people can use at their own discretion, and especially those where they can see what other viewers get as tasks, is going to engender some target pool aol. Most viewers don't do enough viewing to run into this if the pool is at least 500+ tasks, but occasionally you get folks who do 20-50 mini-sessions a day, plus look at what others do, and the result is that before long, even in a pool of well over a thousand tasks, they're going to end up with target pool AOL.

I see this pretty often over at TKR at the Dojo Psi, with viewers who are either brand new and still big on the assuming, or who are so over-familiar with the pool that a good portion of the time, shortly into the session they have either identified the target entirely by the feel of it, or they have identified enough elements to come to a conclusion that it is another target (which probably has something in common with this one which led to that).

Usually the initial data is good, but at some point the mind decides what it 'might' be, at which point suddenly the viewer veers off into describing the assumed target. The difficult part of this is that a viewer gets what they focus on. When a viewer is in session and suddenly gets enough data to suggest it's target X, they often unconsciously shift their attention to target X, or some of it. At that point, they might legitimately be getting 'psychic information', but they've unintentionally retasked themselves in the middle of the session on a different target.

Like other kinds of AOL drive this can be more dangerous when accurate than inaccurate, since at least you'd learn from being wrong, but being right may unintentionally 'teach' the viewer to allow that to happen. It also causes great confusion in the mental-processing part of RV, because a lot of what might come through for the viewer are bits of memory, not psi-derived data, another thing that one doesn't want to entrain oneself to perceive as-if-its-psi.

It's true that some people have learned to work with target pools they know decently, and that training oneself against frontloading/tp-aol can be a good exercise. But it's rather like wearing bad shoes to jog in. Just because you can do so, doesn't mean it's a very helpful thing to do... might even be harmful... there are no karmic brownie points for unnecessary suffering.

There are many sources of free targets on the internet, or that your friends can help you with, not to mention many ways to use precognitive tasking to task yourself on all kinds of things regularly that are still blind to you -- you know the target (e.g., Tuesday's headline in newspaper XYZ) but not the detail. There are many ways to dig yourself out of an over-used target pool, and it's well worth seeking them out.

In a perfect world, viewers would focus as much on live-feedback and current-time targets as possible, just because the feedback tends to be greater and the interest factor tends to be higher, both of which can have a great effect both on the session and on the learning component.

Using AOL Notation During Session

In standard 'methods' training (swann-based training methods), AOL is used as a notation when the data is recorded.

These methods were developed to be training methods, and the point of them is to be an external roadmap to helping the viewer become more aware internally of what is going on in their head, what they are experiencing and how they are processing the information. In my view this was a good idea, since we haven't yet evolved to the technology of being able to open up people's heads and look inside them. So, you have people record what they perceive, and you teach them to recognize certain things in what they are recording that should be an 'indicator' of something going on inside them.

(At least, in a better understanding of the methods than many people have, this is the purpose. Whether this is fulfilled by the way they are taught may be another story, depending on the trainer and situation.)

It appears that truly getting anything out of your system that is in your head/heart requires physically acting out the expression of it. Or in plain english, in a remote viewing context, saying it or writing it down. Even recognizing something as AOL in your head does not tend to be as effective for many viewers in "letting it go" as writing it down "as" AOL.

Oddly, saying or writing down things which are true or accurate seems mostly to better confirm them within yourself. If I were better versed on this research I believe I could reference some here; both of these points have been studied. I'm too lazy right now so, if you want to know more, google it.

In the methods, when a viewer recognizes something as aol, they write it to the far right side of the paper, and annotate it "AOL".

In practice, the point of this is to help the viewer recognize when this kind of processing has happened in their head, and to allow them to 'vent' that assumption. In content viewing (where the session content is used for some purpose, such as science or applications), it can serve to tell the onlooking interviewer (monitor) or a later analyst what was going on with the viewer.

When viewers begin, they usually only have the "labels are AOL" level of understanding about this. Eventually, if they get data like "car" they write it down as AOL because they recognize the label as "processed data".

But realistically, even "brown" is processed data. Maybe not as processed as "A Roman Chariot" for example, but the mere act of translating something to the level of words is processing. So initially, this act of writing it down for novices mostly serves to cause them to pay attention to the more obvious "labeling" tendency.

In other words, new viewers don't write down AOL because it is AOL. They write it down because it is a label and they have been taught that labels are AOL.

In the later stages of most RV methodologies, AOL can sometimes be written as AOL-signal if the viewer chooses. That means that although the viewer recognizes it is AOL, they also believe that it is directly related to the target anyway.

What Matters About Annotating AOL

For the viewer themselves, the important thing about annotating something as AOL is recognizing and releasing it; is realizing it is a mentally-manufactured or over-processed data point. Also, realizing this means that the viewer can often stop, replay the "data experience or observation" they just had, in their head, and better evaluate what they really DID experience, in its components, and better articulate it for recording.

In other words, it's not just recognizing what data may be affected; it is also being able to recognize that issue on the fly, while you are viewing, so that you can figure out what the data should be--or what the data actually was, prior to your head getting carried away with it.

For anybody evaluating the session, annotating something as AOL is the viewer's way of saying: "This was not a psi-based impression or experience. I recognize that this was just something my head has 'affected'. Even if it is accurate, it should not be considered data."

The "AOL-signal" notation would instead say: "This data is affected in some way by my mental processing, but I believe the core of this was based on psi." This functions almost as a way of saying, "This relates to something in the target, but whatever it is, is probably not this."

Ordinary "AOL" annotated data is generally disregarded when evaluating a session. The viewer themselves is telling you, "This isn't psi based information and I am just venting it to get rid of it." There is no reason for an evaluator to want to equate that to data that the viewer genuinely perceived as a psi-based experience. AOL is a viewer's "discard" pile. That does not mean the data point is wrong, by the way.

Sometimes in session a viewer will sense themselves going into a sort of "free association" or "logical correlation" mode. Things flashing into their head related to that would be AOL. Sometimes, a viewer gets a few pieces of info via psi, and feels their mind come to some logical conclusion based on that. They write it down as AOL to vent that and move on.

New Viewers and AOL

A common mistake new viewers make is to write down so much of the 'noise' in their head that instead of remote viewing, they simply spend an entire session writing down AOLs. They end up with sessions that are 50%++ AOL notation. Sometimes this is because they are so new, that they are not easily able to tell what "pings" inside their head are such light mental associative fluff that it is not an 'impression' -- or anything even potentially one. Unless one has got the state of Zen No-Mind down pat, every viewer is going to have to gradually learn enough about what comes-from their head vs. what comes-into their head (and there is a middle, joined ground, too) that they do not feel obliged to spend 20 minutes recording their free association. Half the time, the recording of it simply creates more of it and they never even get around to viewing.

As a solution to that I recommend new viewers write down "what they feel is important or relevant about the target, even stuff they imagine." Usually the "important or relevant" filter will gradually help them get a feel about what is a bunch of unrelated mental fluff they can just ignore. Sometimes, taking the trouble to recognize something, stop, and write it down, gives it far more credit than it deserves, plus it shifts your attention from focused on the target with receptive mind, to focused on the paper with projective communication. It just takes some practice to figure out what is 'subtle' enough to be dismissed as light surface mental wandering, vs. what has enough 'feeling' or 'impression' with it that it counts as data. Either way, AOL is not viewing. The RV session needs to actually contain some psychic work.

Another common mistake viewers (even with more experience) might make is using AOL as a "safety net." It's like their Monopoly Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card. They figure if they mark something AOL it's ok for it to be wrong; it's like a "free" data point because one has already declared it "more processing than psi". So you can say anything you want as long as you mark it AOL.

Ah, but then you find that when they review their session, if they have something valid annotated AOL, then everybody wants to take credit for it! This is not appropriate. Part of learning RV is learning to "own your data", is learning to take responsibility for it, be willing to go with what you experience and do your best and face the results, no matter how they match or don't, learn something from the experience and move on.

Also, part of using any annotation is using it correctly, of course. Psychic impressions do not belong in the AOL column.

When it's Data, it's not AOL

There are plenty of examples where data that is a noun, a label, and even a highly processed data point, for that matter even an entire location or situation of highly processed information, is genuinely based on psi-perception. It is not about secondary processing by the viewer making it something complex or labeled. It is literally what the viewer experienced.

If the viewer has a sense of flying over an island and zooming down near a woven bridge in lush greenery and seeing a small village on fire, then that is their data. Their data is not "flying. island-aol. zooming. bridge-aol. greenery. village. fire." but to hear some people define AOL you'd think so. That is working against psi, and against the viewer, and using the red-tape bureaucracy of something designed to help, to instead hinder the process.

Psychics often run into this when they begin working in an RV protocol. They are often used to opening up and BAM they've got more information in 30 seconds than some viewers could get in 30 hours. And some people naturally get much larger data constructs. They may write down labels because they quite literally experience things in that more 'data-combined' form.

This may require more work on the viewer's part to prevent that kind of mental combining from happening even when it shouldn't. To the degree it works for them... great, they should go for it. What matters is what works. Usually it's a good exercise, if you get data this way, to make a point after anything you write down like that, to then flesh out how it feels inside you; the components that make it that-thing. Be sure though, that you are not describing what you intellectually know that-thing contains, but rather, that you are describing what you psychically feel that-thing contains. When this happens, the viewer ends up with a combination of labels (as data, not as aol) and detailed descriptions.

It usually won't take long before they realize that focusing on the more component information, will provide a ton more data that might be useful. RV is not about matching pictures after all; it's about providing "descriptive information" to someone who wants to use it. So the more accurate, detailed description that can be provided, the better.

The viewer's data should be based on their experience. Whatever that may be. Describe it as best you can, whether that means sketching (always a good idea if you can), taking shorthand, writing an essay, or talking into a recording device. It's up to the viewer to communicate the data as well as they can.

Sometimes, based on the wholly subjective experience in their session, they may feel that "parsing down" the information to basic fact-phrases is what is best. Sometimes, they may feel that waxing eloquently about a whole experience and feeling is what is best. This is up to the viewer, unless they use a methodology that restricts them. If your methodology insists you write all your data in words or tiny phrases in logical columns, then either you need to adapt to that, or you need to ditch at least some of that method and explore what comes naturally for you and develop your strengths as best you can.

Let's say (a funny real example of a viewer friend of mine) you're in session and you see a cartoon Snoopy Flying Ace and you 'know' the target is a fighter plane. It doesn't matter that your data isn't even what you experienced. It doesn't matter that your data is definitely a highly processed thing. If you are pretty sure you know the data is a fighter jet, not because your head is making the association or assumption, but because you feel in your gut that this is what it means, then that is what goes on paper. If you're wrong, you will gradually learn what sense perceptions you are willing to gamble accuracy on and what you aren't.

If you are practicing for yourself, do record this processing for your records. For example, you might write down: "sym> Snoopy Flying Ace = fighter plane" so later, you will know that you got data you believe is symbology, and then here is what you believe the information actually translates to. This is important, because later when you review past sessions (which you should definitely do. I've learned more from past-session review than actual viewing I think.) you may see certain commonalities in symbols, or in how you translate symbols.

(This is assuming the viewer gets symbology as data. Most do, but not all.)

There is another kind of data that is not psychic, it is analytical, but I do not consider AOL, because it is not overlay 'affecting' data, it is understanding 'explaining' data, instead.

This is when, during a time when the data seems relative flowing or more contextual, when the viewer may write down something like "red star > ana = Russian". The difference between this and the symbology is that (a) this may be data that is not symbolic (only this example was), and (b) this is not about the viewer "feeling" a gut-sense of what-it-means, this is about a sheer mental recognition on the viewer's part that when they get data X and Y, it usually means Z and they believe it does this time.

Technically the session is not the place for analysis obviously, but a viewer with experience is likely to sometimes recognize one or more data components, or their sequence, as having a likely meaning that may not be obvious on paper if they don't write it down.

Exercises to Improve AOL Avoidance & Handling

There are several ways a viewer can work toward improving how they avoid and/or 'deal with' AOL in session, whether directly or as a side-effect (positive benefit) of other issues. Here are a few pretty powerful things that I recommend.

1. If you record anything as AOL, ask yourself what it is based upon. If you got 'little red car', the instant you realize it's AOL, ask yourself: 'What made me think of that'? Hopefully, you will then realize that a sense of small, round, red, motion, fun, was rapidly flipping through your mind. At that point, write down the real data. Eventually, the goal is that a viewer instantly recognizes when it's happened, flips back memory a few seconds to their original perception for replay, and writes down the proper information.

Of course, this eventually leads to a viewer simply sitting down and viewing. Other people say, "Look, he doesn't even have a method! He's just a natural." Yeah, riiiiiiight. There is a good deal of RV that can be, and in my opinion eventually should be, done in the viewer's head (in part for immediacy reasons). The viewer records what results. The external methods many people use are good training for brand-newbies and for the gradual, uniquely individual development of internal methods by a viewer. If for no other reason than rigidity and time, eventually for most (not all) viewers I know, external stuff gives way to a more flexible and more internal approach. Yes, the data eventually gets to the paper, but the 'session experience' tends to get processed fast enough in the head that writing down data becomes primary, not writing down process.

2. When you get feedback on a session, that moment is of key importance. Don't rush on to some other target or activity. Sit down, be quiet, and look at every data point that you wrote down. Read one to yourself. Stop. Look at the feedback. Consider. Does this match? What all might it match? If it doesn't, what was I feeling that caused me to write that down, can I repeat that experience in myself? If I can, and I do, and now I see feedback, how do I think that experience relates to what's in or implied by the feedback? What caused my "experience" in session to get written down as I wrote it? Do this for every single thing you wrote down that is not marked AOL.

Popular methodologies have somewhat attuned people to looking at data as simply right vs. wrong, or nearly always "literal" (as opposed to symbolic, etc.). Worse, it often inspires viewers to end a session and instantly go into a math-test mentality where they start evaluating what category every data point falls into and counting how many they've got and so on. I can't think of anything worse for a viewer than doing this after a session. If you must database your results, do it later. After-session is the most powerful time for psychological review and consideration. The session feedback time is a time of intimacy in a way, where you and your mind can go over the experience you just had together. Don't underestimate how important this is.

3. Never give yourself credit for AOL. If you mark it AOL, it doesn't 'count' as credit for you if it's right. If you want your AOLs to count, own your viewing. If it's real, write it down as real. AOL means it's a mental construct, not psychic data. AOL becomes a CYA cop-out for many viewers, rather than a way of communicating something.

The viewer's "assignment of meaning" is vastly important to their experience and progress and learning. You have to set your internal rewards, recognition, etc. based on what you want to 'teach' yourself. Viewers should set themselves as the driver and owner of their talent and their skill, no matter what their background or who their teachers or what their methods. A great deal of psychic work is affected by a viewer's strong sense of autonomy (or lack thereof) and making yourself take yourself seriously, and not letting yourself get away with excuses, is an important part of developing that strength.

4. It is a good exercise, once a viewer has some experience (not for brand-new viewers), to make an exercise, temporarily anyway, of writing down everything that relates to your session, not just your data. In other words, if you write down "AOL - car" then write down, quickly as you can, WHY 'car' was an AOL. I don't mean why intellectually, I mean what you 'sense' that leads to the 'car' conclusion. A primary point of using an external notation of something is to teach yourself 'awareness' of it. Eventually, while you are viewing, this kind of understanding about yourself should be part of the process. It should not take up big blocks of seconds while stuff gets written down. It should be a micro-second realization, backtrack, data re-vew, and then recording what should be recorded. The external is there to teach the internal. Everything you can do toward that learning process is a good thing.

5. Another exercise worth doing is recording 'how' data comes across to you. For example if you get names, words, or visuals, there are many different ways that these can come through. You may hear a voice say a word; you mean get a 'sense' of a word; you may visually 'see' the word written. Over time, you're likely to find, if you pay attention to this, that "how" data comes through may relate to how literal it may be, and even how accurate it may be. It may also relate to processing issues you have including AOL. It's worth tracking, when you can.

6. Speed during the session can help, mostly because it can reduce the amount of time that the mind has to wander, associate, etc. This is a very good approach for new viewers. In general though, it is a bit of a tradeoff. Being able to truly pay attention and often 'explore' data is lost if one is rushing through it with all haste.

A viewer friend gave a good analogy of this. He said in the gym, many people use music or videos to distract them from their workout exercises and make them seem to go faster, and for the general public level, this works well. But serious athletes and bodybuilders want to pay attention to what they are doing, and so you don't find them 'spacing out' the process, you find them really focusing on it instead. There is something to be said for all-haste: it gets things done, gets you through it, and reduces mental distraction. But there is something to be said for a slower, more focus-intensive effort as well. What approach works best may depend on the target, and the reason for the session, as well as the viewer.

The Point of it All

What 'matters' to a session is that you obtain valid information about the target, much of which is usually correlated with what we call (as slang; nobody can truly define this) "target contact," or "rapport." A few seconds of close target contact can often do more for loads of accurate data, than a much longer period of distant methodical work (and often with less inaccurate data, and less overall data to wade through when trying to make sense of it all). Your practices as far as methods and process go, should serve this goal first.

So how you think about the viewer's interference with data -- including "AOL", often used as a term to encompass nearly every kind of potential interference or affect -- should be considered in the context of what is best for learning about yourself, and what is best for providing accurate information about your target. Experiment if you can. Get a feel for what works for you.

Using AOL in session notation is not necessarily something a viewer "should" do, but anybody "can", and I find it helpful personally. You can make up your own notation if you wish. Some methods use "d:" for "deduction" for example. Every methodology has a whole vocabulary of its own, and most viewers gradually develop a written shorthand for a ton of different stuff, much of which they've come up with for their own unique process.

Words don't make RV. Nothing matters to viewing but the viewing, and nothing matters to the practicing viewer but the experience and the learning. So terminology is worth understanding, and you can use some of it if you wish -- or not. If you don't like it, don't use it. In the end every viewer is responsible for themselves . . . just do what works for you.

But if you want to talk with other people about it, it's a good idea to have a shared vocabulary.

-- PJ

(P.S. I wrote this off the top while sleep deprived--as always. It may be imperfect and I may improve it in places later.)

Wide Awake in Dreamland

2008-03-06T20:15:00.000-08:00

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 06 May 2007

Oh. When I wrote the previous post (Ganymede) I meant to write this one but got carried away!

So the archetype model I've been using for sessions lately has been forcing some warping of my brain.

As I left the movie theatre last night, and I walked across the parking lot, it suddenly occurred to me:

If the target is in me; if the archetype is the collected energy of the target; then everything in my reality is in me too.

Just like Seth would say, and the wise ones throughout time, who describe our reality as a non-lucid dream, and just one of many for that matter.

I walked past the cars. I felt a truck go past behind me.

What does it feel like inside me? I wondered. Is there a "feel" to parking lots, for example, that I could become more aware of by thinking about it right now, while having this experience? Would that help me to recognize the feel during session?

Alan Watts talked of this. And Suzuki, and the other writers of Zen (for the West) whom I waded through all those eons ago. Everything outside you is inside you. Inside is the blueprint. Outside is a mirror of it.

Archetype meditations function on this same logic: the universe is inside you. You go inside to make changes. You have a relationship with everything because everything is of you. The secret to control is allowing, the secret to letting go is merging, the secret to mastering is loving and serving.

Joe McMoneagle says: Remote Viewing comes to those who put it first, others second, and themselves third. Maybe that's so.

I was so distracted by my thoughts I drove over a curb. Sigh. I'm becoming a genuine 'airy psychic' sort!

I keep looking at things and asking myself, "How does that table feel inside me? How does the phone ringing feel inside me?"

Ganymede

2008-03-06T20:09:00.000-08:00

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 05 May 2007

I went to see the movie "NEXT" tonight. The story is about a man (Nick Cage) who can see the future. But only 2 minutes into the future. He's had the ability his whole life and is extremely deft with its use... while he works as a stage magician at a small casino in Vegas. Worth seeing. Action film, of course!

The last couple days I've really been focusing on viewing and "thinking" in the model of viewing. Working on integrating what I am doing. The archetype approach to RV puts a bit of a different slant on the mental model of it all. It's much more of a "relationship" -- with the target; and because the target is part of me, because everything is, with myself.

I had three pretty decent sessions in the latest model (see the myPsiche blog for notes on the protocol). And then I did a fourth that had a rather unusual outcome.

***

The first thing to note is that the session, compared to feedback, has nothing to do with it. At least, unless there is some kind of odd fish-like creature being mined (on a very small scale) on Ganymede and we don't know about it, which is assuming quite a lot, suffice to say my session was simply off-target. The focus of feedback was it in space of course, so I believe that should have been my viewing perspective. Instead I had some tiny group of people 'visiting' solely for the purpose of catching some kind of bizarre heavy flattish fish through ice. Oh well.

I keep the target woven with me during feedback and my notes, and when I saw the feedback, which looks like a dead grey moon, I sighed. I explained to the target, in my head, that obviously we were both wrong, because look here, this should have been the target and perspective.

The target archetype, however, disagreed.

Now, I've sometimes had targets during session interact with me. I've had archetypes and aspects interact with me. But this is the first time I've ever had a target archetype actually communicate with me somewhat directly -- let alone AFTER the session. And argue!

It's not too hard to figure out why it never happened before: first, although I began doing archmeds prior to session eons ago, I never before had a mental model that had this "interwoven me + target- archetype" model before, so that the target could communicate with me (as opposed to me just getting impressions from it during session).

Secondly, I didn't until now have a model where I kept that weave together during feedback and notes, before asking inner-guide to de-weave us.

The archetype, just like any other archetype in a meditation except this was more real-time real-world, conveyed something that I translated as, "a big hunk of dead rock does not accurately summarize me." He actually seemed slightly put out! Not an emotion, just... well it's too subtly ineffable to put into words I guess.

My curiosity was piqued. I felt the archetype wanted to go back into our session model where I let it show me what IT thinks is important to communicate. Yet the session was over. I already had feedback. Anything after that point would just seem like imagination frankly.

But this kind of communication isn't one-way. It's not a superior, controller kind of thing. It's a mutual friendship. It's a teamwork relationship. So, I was game. I figured, I missed the target obviously, it's already a write-off, this is just experience for fun. Bring it on babe! I just sat back and closed my eyes and literally grinned with the humor of it all.

A big ocean wave crashed down nearly upon me, and then went past, as if I were virtually right beside it. Water everywhere. Swells of the water everywhere, and another wave building. Whoaaaaaa.... I said out loud, opening my eyes and leaning forward a little. That was terrific! Certainly way more "you are here" than any of the session, for sure.

I leaned back and closed my eyes again, and as my head bumped the wall a bit, I felt as if it bumped something hard -- and I was lying on my back on something hard, looking up at the sky, surrounded by water, water literally everywhere as far as the eye could see. The sky was grey. The water didn't have any particular color that I noticed either, at least not from the angle I was seeing it. No, I didn't see any fish, no birds, no people, no typical ocean scene data -- but definitely more than enough ocean, and tidal pull on it, clearly.

So.... obviously, you are telling me that you have ocean, I said to the target archetype. That's terrific. Then I found myself 'flying over' something. It was land, but... well not like anything I've seen before. Imagine, ok, that you are over a really huge system of canyons. Now imagine that the canyons are unusually... well, somewhat more parallel than they normally here, and of dark rock. "I want to go down there," I said to the arch, and my perspective went down, down, really deep, to the bottom of this unbelievably deep canyon. I just stood there at the bottom, looking up, utterly marveling at the sheer enormity of it.

I opened my eyes and changed position. If my RV were that experiential you couldn't keep me from it nearly every waking hour. Well, sometimes it is -- but not often, for sure that it is in the minority. What is this, I asked myself? This is imagination? Look at the picture. It's a moon. It's dead. And yet...

At that moment, I was having a 'mutual experience of equals' with the target, summarized energetically as the archetype. At this point, I didn't just feel humor and good natured willingness. I felt love. I imagined blending warm golden energy into the archetype. You are so beautiful, I told it. Not the tale of someone moved by a visual. The heartfelt gushing of someone whose love for someone makes them beautiful. I felt nearly overwhelmed. Ganymede had ceased to be a target or an archetype to me and had become a legitimate entity in its own right. And I was in love with it.

I sat staring into space for a little bit.

I wanted more feedback. Not because I wanted to see if my experiences were possible. At that moment, it would not have mattered if there was a planetary survey as detailed as Google Earth of the thing contradicting me; I felt I'd just had a personal conversation with the planet-as-identity itself and I wasn't in doubt about it. I just wanted to know more about it, the way you would want to know more about a person you met and were crazy about.

Of course, I told myself, this is blowing protocol.

"You already wrote it off as a totally missed target," part of me thought drily. "How much worse can it get?"

I decided my previous three sessions were solid and factual enough that on this one, I would sacrifice it and do something I so rarely do: go get additional feedback. I wanted to know more than a picture of a moon from space. Anything. So I google'd it: Ganymede. I went to the first link that seemed a science site.

There were several pictures, a couple animations, a supershort video, an audio recording of some frequencies, etc. I looked at a couple of pictures. Yep, the same 'dead moon' as we see pictures of from our own. I feel the target, woven in with me still. Observing my feelings, and what I observe. I look at another photo, this of a rather bizarre sort of dark striped terrain. I realize: That must be the canyons. and I feel the target's interest. And suddenly, it hits me, and I'm so astonished --

-- I had thought of the target showing me itself. I had thought of sharing with the target the process. I had thought of all kinds of things. But I had never once thought of me showing the target how my people perceive it. I had thought of translating from the target into my perspective. Never of translating from my perspective FOR the target! For some reason I was kind of blown away by the concept. Like the whole viewing process but in reverse!

I very slowly viewed the next picture. Got the big resolution one. Slowly scrolled, to show the whole thing. Feeling as if I had become exactly the "universal translator" or "psychic library card" that I had previously referred to: where the target, acting like a remote viewer, perceived its target, which was how-we-perceived-it in our reality. I felt like I was taking it on a sort of tour. I was a tour guide of how earth people perceive it. I got kind of anthropomorphic then to be honest. I quietly said out loud the various text notes, as if to bring them more fully into me so it could grok them, and I really focused on all the information so the transfer would be as clear as possible.

The stats on Ganymede were surprising. It's nearly 2.5x the size of earth. It has a small magnetosphere and it appears to have even a very small possibly oxygen atmosphere, though this is still theory. In fact it has everything that would qualify it as a planet, except that it orbits jupiter instead of the sun.

It is said to be greatly covered by water-ice. I don't know if this means it could have oceans, or only ice. I'm here to tell you that experientially, I think it has at least one genuine, definitely liquid-form ocean. But the only feedback I have says the planet is covered with ice. Which means the feedback contradicts my experience.

Being the logical, careful about protocol, practical kind of viewer I am...

...I choose to believe my experience over any amount of feedback. HA HA HA.

And wouldn't you know, out of that four session block, three of which were good, one of which was excellent, the experience that would move me most would be the one that was NOT remote viewing and had no feedback. Sigh! Is that predictable or what? Oh brother.

Back to practical things now.

I AM a "Universal Translator"

2008-03-06T20:00:00.001-08:00

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 03 May 2007

"You get what you focus upon," the wise ones say.

The other day I decided to focus on what I really wanted to do with remote viewing. I sat down and I made myself a list. It looked like this:

Viewing
Writing - fiction, as well as psi-related non-fiction
Taking in and Presenting projects for viewing (PM for Apps)
Arranging practice/development regimens for viewers
PMing software development for viewing/dowsing
Talking to police/investigators about viewing
Talking to the media and others about viewing
Managing protocol projects for predictive viewing

And yet, when I looked at the list afterward, all I could think was,

"There is no feeling of life in me when I read that. How dull."

A little on the 'viewing' and the 'writing' top items. Everything else just seemed rather like a boring shopping list of what I might expect, or intellectually want. It could have been a laundry or shopping list for all it sparked in me.

It just didn't MOVE me. And I felt like it should.

"What do I want to do with viewing?" I asked myself, wondering at my reaction.

"What drives me? Something obviously drives me after 12 years of obsession. What is it?"

I didn't know. I finally moved it to the back part of my brain and went on with my life.

o0o

A day or two later I was doing some ARV sessions (these are very short). I don't normally use archetype RV with these because 10-20 minutes of lead-in time for a 5 minute session seems a bit like overkill frankly. But I felt like it so I did with one of them. Mostly it was fun because of Inner Guide, or IG for short, whom I adore.

I finished the first session and began the archmed process for the second when it suddenly hit me.

I am a UNIVERSAL TRANSLATOR. That is my path. That is what moves me. That is what drives me. Feeds me. Calls me. Loves me.

I don't want to "objectively know information." I know that is the cool thing. I know that is the hip "intelligence soldiers use this" approach. I know that is the 'controller' perspective.

But it isn't mine.

Screw objectivity. I want to share perception with the other.

o0o

Yes I know that "too much subjectivity can affect perception and bias communication". So hey, if I'm working for someone else maybe I'll take that into account. Maybe. Maybe there are benefits that make it worth it. But I don't view for other people anyway. I don't view for the cause of viewing. I view for me. For how it makes me feel inside.

I've shared 'awareness' with objects before. More than once. Even with a tornado in session. With other people, both spontaneously and in session. With a whole environ.

"Shared perception" is what I've dubbed an "Identity Interference Factor" or IIF for short (how I love acronyms): it is one of the experiential aspects of remote viewing that I consider most "destabilizing" in its side- and after- effects.

o0o

I probably shouldn't blog after watching 'Heroes' since it darkens my vision a bit. But I don't think it changes. It just brings out a part of me that is normally buried behind long-suffering optimism.

Conscious psi by nature is destabilizing. You cannot change the most fundamental belief systems about reality and have it be no big deal. Remote Viewing, just like psychic work and magical exploration since the dawn of time, leaves more lunacy in its path than any other notable effect. From the chronic paranoia that low-level effects seem to spark in people, to serious problems distinguishing truth and reality and identity.

We all thought RV would make us omniscient. Once upon a time. Yet almost nobody stays with it, statistically. And of those who do, a disproportionate number eventually demonstrate they are at least half mad. At least.

Identity Interference Factors rock the boat of sanity. On the bright side, most people are more spared by their lack of serious talent than the lack of conscious psi's real results.

I believe I can.... 'adapt'. Will I be the same person after deliberately seeking out archetypal-level connection with all my targets? No. I am not the same after every target I do. I believe I have a guiding principle, in Inner Guide, in Archangel Michael, in intent, that will shape what I call me for the better over time.

Everyone changes. Some just change more quickly, and more profoundly, than others.

o0o

Identity. Perspective. A shift in perspective is the one thing that is most deeply rooted in me, even in experiences long prior to ever hearing of RV. That novelty rocks my world, feeds my soul, and gives me a kind of primal, soul-centered excitement that is almost too much to bear.... and ineffable.

That's what drives me. That's what I love the most. That's what I crave when I start really viewing consistently. That's what wakes the fire inside me.

I want to merge. I want to share perspective. I want to feel it inside me. It's sex of the spirit. It's recognizing and validating the parts of my innermost self, my energy that ARE what I perceive as a reflection in my outside world.

o0o

So I was right. My list was boring. It didn't have "me" in it. It didn't have the core of energy that pulls me to viewing like an astral love affair. It was just plans, and logic, and words on paper. That isn't what RV is to me.

For a dozen years I've shied away from viewing when I started getting deep. I've run from the time it demands, from the obsession and "driven" qualities that I always have but it seems to invoke at deeper levels, and from the severe lack of giving-a-damn that it always brought for my interest in helping others and the field at large. I've been more good to RV while barely viewing, I have felt.

Maybe I don't care so much anymore. I'm coming around to a change in that perspective. In that interest in much beyond my own development. Maybe it's the slight shifts that every target, touched that way, recognized as my inside, brings. Sometimes I think I am becoming something. A Me+, perhaps. It still feels like me. I still call it me. But it's not the me I was yesterday or will be tomorrow. And maybe everybody has that experience. Maybe I'm the one who, because of my interest in 'perspective' and 'identity', notices it.

o0o

Long ago, Jung worked with archetypes. Scared the hell out of himself. Stated, and quite rightly, that it was so powerful it was literally dangerous. But since then, the 'Inner Guide' model came along. And that has always worked perfectly for me for archetype work. Even powerful, soul-shaking, mind-blowing experiences as sometimes occur during archetype work.

I use inner guide in sessions, with Archetype RV. And when I'm done I have him separate us. I keep my memory. I keep the slightly-larger me that results. I keep the feel, the taste, of the target. But I feel the separation, the slightly smaller-ness, when IG un-weaves us.

And that's why I'm here. I didn't know it until then. It all sort of hit me in a ROTE as Bob Monroe used to call them, like a huge realization, a whole ball of interrelated thought that "opens up and rolls out inside you".

This is my motive.

This is who I am. I AM... everything.

A psychic library card. A universal translator.

Breathing

2008-03-06T19:24:00.000-08:00

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 19 April 2007

I've been doing a lot of thinking the last few days. Ever since the archetype talked to me about time, I've been thinking a lot about that. About time, about space, and the brain-crunching idea of them not being separate really at all.

Along with this, me and my best friend have been having conversations about my reality. Reminding me of all the stuff I know, that Seth would tell me, but that I've kind of moved out of thinking about for a long time. Talking about my physical reality, and what it reflects. Maybe me being uptight. Cluttered. And maybe "hanging on to things," causing a sort of "reality clogging". Maybe anal retentive can be a feng shui effect too. HA HA.

o0o Epiphanies

Today I had a sort of epiphany. Well not like a life-changing thing, but definitely a get-my-act-together kind of thing.

It all started over a chat room.

Since 1993 the TKR forum members have asked for a chat. For a long time I was adamant I wouldn't have one. I didn't have time to have it moderated, I would not allow the head-trip mind-F*** BS that a stupid number of people in the field online lived for in chat rooms, I wouldn't put up with the 'trolls' which were actually viewers from all kinds of sources that resented Any God But Their Own, etc. I was cranky and snappy about it and that was that.

But eventually, some of the TKR Admins themselves were asking. I have a soft spot for all of them. Without them I'd have to be spending all my time reading boards and carrying on monologues. They make that project possible and in doing so, free up a whole lot of my time. (Which is ridiculously limited even with their help.) I want to do anything I can to help them or make them happy.

So, at the time, this was maybe 2-3 years ago, I went out and looked for chat options. I refused the easier stuff, like IRC, because I wanted something that we could control. I once vowed -- and I still maintain -- that I will never again run a project that is fully unmoderated, that allows evil abusers to deliberately stalk and destroy the entire project for everybody. I feel I owe it to anybody who spends their time in anything I run, to at least make sure I can somewhat protect them and their contributions from destruction, by being able to bounce/ban "trolls." That the worst trolls are usually allegedly viewers themselves is one of the great ironies of this field, but never mind.

The affordable options for software that allowed privacy, could be run from my own site (though tying into their server), could have rooms made/dropped on command, could do moderated "guest interview" chats, etc. were few. In the end I settled on a java-based chat hosted in the UK for around 30 bucks a month plus a hefty set up fee. We had the chat room up for awhile. I don't know how long, maybe a year, 18 months? (My time sense is completely distorted. Never believe me when I estimate anything related to time.) We had a few guest chats. I was busy and didn't get off my butt to make more of them happen, but they were fun and interesting.

We usually had a few people show up on Monday nights after the Missions at TKR got feedback. It didn't get much use otherwise though. I made an option in the dojo software, for users to schedule a chat, or to say when someone would be around, but there wasn't much interest it appeared. This could be partly because the people expressing interest were mostly on the forum, while the chat you actually had to get to through the dojo.

After what seemed like eons, I realized how much money I had dished out for something seldom used -- and the software itself kind of drove me nuts anyway -- and so I just canceled the chatserver and figured "eventually, I'll do something else."

In keeping with the laws of Murphy, the minute I canceled it, all kinds of people seemed to want it. It's like something in the universe senses the void. It's like swearing celibacy and then watching people just pour out of the woodwork who are hot to have you. The irony is downright funny. Sort of.

o0o Time marches on.

So it's been a long time and we haven't had a chat room. I decided on what I wanted to get back in October of last year, and made plans. But it cost a bit. About $500-600, plus another $100 for the first year of the chatserver hosting. If I couldn't swing at least half the total amount up front there was no point to doing it, so I kept putting it off, not having that much at one time.

Time marches on. "Real Soon Now" in my world has the subjectivity of my time attached to it. This could mean in 5 minutes or maybe in 5 years. A friend once told me it was one of the most annoying things about me, but I feel sure he left out several far more interesting options.

Meanwhile, another sort of parallel issue that ties into this epiphany has been going on. Since way-back-when -- we are talking end of 1995 now -- I've been regularly faced with the opportunity to make some money from something related to RV, and refused.

o0o MoneyMoneyMoneyMoney

For just over a couple of years, it was because of what I considered the 'honor of the sensei' -- which is to say, people would offer to come give me cash if I'd just spend a full day letting them pick my brain, and I had an infant and no real job and a husband that didn't work and I desperately needed it, but I felt that anybody worth teaching "should have a real teacher" -- that being one of the 'formal' instructors I knew and had studied with -- and I felt that it would also be unfair to the teachers to take money they should get.

This was a real drama queen martyr thing in retrospect, because the degree of my need, the casual one-off nature of the options, and the obscene amount of money that RV teachers were making off the public anyway, should have made all that angst a moot point. But no, get me on any kind of kick where I think any decision is about the 'honor' of something and you might as well give up, I'm ten times as stubborn. Sigh. Sometimes I think my character was written by John Irving -- it's like the kind of thing you've got to have a sense of humor and a penchant for sociology to appreciate.

TKR and the dojo's software developed, and the time demands put into it kept up. It's been reprogrammed and redesigned several times, and expanded continually. I've tried to keep a constant hand in TKR's communications, as much for the insanity it keeps out as a side effect, as for anything I might contribute. The amount of hours eventually 'averaged' to like 40 a week at least every other week -- evenings and into the night and all weekend generally, for eons. The amount of money I was spending just on that project alone, for server rentals, programming help at times, applets or software plugins on occasion, domain names, etc. -- not counting other things like Firedocs or many other RV domains that I maintain -- reached into the thousands of dollars.

My friends started really leaning on me about it. They thought it was insane and ridiculous that anybody would seem to basically dedicate their entire life outside work and kid to something and get no compensation for it -- their theory was that at the least, I should charge enough so I didn't have to do all that work for free AND pay for it. But making stuff available was the whole point of TKR, so I didn't care much. I made a decent income at my job, not great but enough that I could afford to fund it all with being dependent on anybody else. The politics and marketing media and business competition in the RV field, not counting disinformation, misinformation, mis-education (enough of that to span the globe several times), cult indoctrination and more made an island of sanity for RV -- a FREE one -- critical in my opinion. I wanted it open and out there.

o0o Donations and Drama

So then in the early days of TKR, the idea of a "donation" button was brought up. At first, I think I just refused, because I didn't want to feel beholden to others. I didn't want anybody to ever be able to say, "Hey, I donated money to you, how dare you let my name or opinion get dissed in your project?" I already had a rather surreal problem with one trainer thinking it was my moral duty to defend his reputation from the people he'd worked so hard to ruin it with, and the thought of that expanding to cover anybody who wanted to donate 20 bucks nearly gave me hives just thinking about it.

Eventually, when the topic came up again, and more people had commented to me about such things privately, I decided to consider it. But then I realized that this might not work. Due to marrying a foreigner who never got legal here and some related issues bigger than anything you want to hear about (trust me), I owe the IRS money. This means that if I had actual INCOME -- like, dependable income from a job or client -- they could (they do) levy it. I had this idea that they would hunt down every person who sent me five dollars and send them all my personal info and a 1/4" stack of paper with threats about what'd happen if they didn't fill it out. Which I might add they did to several of my clients long ago, which contributed to them not being clients and greatly complicated my paying the debt. (Brilliant, they are not.) So at that point I refused because I didn't know enough about it (now I know more) and I worried that debt might cause some problems if I took donations.

More time passed. More money... more working through the night... and the subject would come up now and again, usually in private correspondence. I would shrug it off. It's ok, I can handle it.

o0o

Recently, I dished out a few hundred for the first almost-half of the chatroom stuff. I was going to open it even with the limitations it had, stuff I hadn't bought yet for customizing, but it turns out these "emoticons" and "preset comments" and "avatars" in it are so incredibly stupid, it is just downright humiliating to even be associated with.

So with a sigh I realized it could be a few months before I had the money for the rest of it (so I could change them), given the way things are going in my life lately, and everyone would just have to wait. Yes, that meant I'd be paying monthly on a chatserver nobody used, but we're talking about my reputation being proxy to totally moronic media. That seemed more important. Apparently if I can't be cool I will take my ball and ... not chat.

So to my surprise, on the TKR board, the very next day (he must be psychic!) Daz asks for a chat room. I say sure, and explain it's sort of coming but has to wait on a bit more funds. And he suggests -- as has happened so many times before -- that I put up a donation button and let people donate to the project for it.

I wrote a message that I didn't post, that said, "No, it's ok. It'll be here eventually."

And then just before I clicked on the send button, it all hit me.

This is my conversation with myself, in personal vs. Devil's Advocate (DA) form.

o0o Inner Guide (DA) Gets Cheeky
DA: They can't donate why?
PJ: I don't need it.
DA: If you can't do what they want because you don't have the money, you need it.
PJ: I don't need to ask others for help.
DA: Woo woo. So this is about your ego? I thought it was about a chat room.
PJ: Well I can take care of it, it'll just take awhile.
DA: It's already been awhile. A LONG while. So what you're really saying is, "Only I, The Official Martyr(tm), can contribute to this project." Aren't you the one always talking about how it's the members that make the project what it is? And now you're saying you won't let the members help make it what they want it to be.... because why, again?
PJ: I don't want to make money off online RV. I've seen it corrupt every person it touches.
DA: Who said you're making money off it? At this point all the donations you'll ever get times 1,000 couldn't cover the amount of money and time you've been putting into RV stuff online since late 1995. You'll be lucky if once a year you get enough donations to cover a month of your overall RV online expenses. The expenses you pay aren't business expenses, they are personal. If someone pays part of that, it's a gift. It's a tiny drop in the bucket that might help. More importantly, it might help the members actually contribute to the things important to them. Something you say you want, in general.
PJ: Yeah but then some bonehead will be saying that I'm doing it for money.
DA: First, that's just too stupid to qualify, given everything you've put in the last dozen years. It would make them look bad more than you if they did. Second, this means that rather than basing your decisions on the many people in projects you're part of, or the people who most like you and want to help you or help the project, you're basing your decisions on some invisible, assumed person who doesn't like you and might say bad things about you. What kind of sense does that make? If anybody influences your decisions it should be your friends, not your enemies. Besides, your enemies already diss you, who cares if they add something else to their rants? Why should you care anyway? They're off your radar. Live your life.
PJ: I guess I just want to feel like I am not indebted and beholden to people.
DA: Then maybe you should build your next social club in a cave. Listen, you're the one always going on about how you only build the shell and the people are the heart and soul of it and it's their interests and input that drive it. It isn't about you being beholden. The point is, it isn't about YOU. Get over yourself already! Nobody is doing you a favor. Maybe a little, maybe IF they like you, but maybe it's a whole lot more about just wanting to feel like they're contributing to something they appreciate online. Maybe they only visit because of someone or something else and they can't stand you. That doesn't mean they don't appreciate the project. You're filtering everything as if it has to come through the doorway of your ego. Miss "I must be independent, and honorable!" That just doesn't really apply to donations. It might apply to you selling 1-900 RV services, or ranting about aliens and doom on late night radio, but a "donation to an RV project" is NOT a statement on your ego, morality, competence, independence, or anything else. Because it's not a statement about YOU, ok?

... I thought about this for awhile. The part that really bugs me about my inner voice (and I have pleaded, lately, for my Inner Guide to be more present in my conscious life, and I suspect this is his doing, as he is often making me see things about myself I don't want to see), is that it makes me realize what a totally conceited autocrat I can be sometimes.

So I didn't post the message and instead went back to work for a bit while I mulled it over. I started thinking about the talks my buddy and I have been having about the clutter in my house and what the archetype said about time, space, clutter and feng shui, and I suddenly realized:

o0o It's all connected.

All the crap I hang on to that I don't really "need" terribly, that causes clutter in my house; all the issues I won't let go of that cause me such resistance to ever "being vulnerable" or "letting someone help me" (because it would make me vulnerable -- the Narrator talked to me about that years ago) -- it's connected.

And I realized that what it amounts to, I am not "letting anything in" -- not just 'donations' but really, the whole larger picture of being "acceptive" of how reality interacts with me -- and I am also not "letting anything out" -- like the house which, despite being 1.7 billion times better now that my ex is gone, is still way too cluttered for my taste.

And then, in one of those perspective-switches that are so right they irk me, I remembered what my friend was saying about the clutter: that it's a poverty mentality, of course.

If you really trust you'll have what you need in life, you let things go, you let them find use with others, you don't hoard and store things that you never use or for really long periods of time. Everything around you, he reminded me, is literally a reminder ("an idea incarnate", I thought) of what you think you lack, of what you think you won't be able to get again when you need it.

Instead of being surrounded by plenty, what I am really surrounded by is monuments to lack.

DA: There's no FLOW. It's a fear-based response. It's a curled-up-in-shell-of-safety response. If you had faith in yourself, in your reality, if you could "ALLOW" -- the big issue for you -- you would let things flow from you, and flow to you as well, and it wouldn't be any big issue at all.

I wondered if that might relate to the extra body weight that is such a bother to get off me. Not allowing, not releasing, storing and hoarding. Kinda sounds like it huh.

I'm really sort of astounded by the insight. Not that being a bonehead is new to me, I realize this about myself regularly, but I found today particularly insightful, albeit in a bit of a bruising yet freeing way.

o0o Breaking The Habit

I've decided that I'm going to change that. I'm going to improve myself. I'm going to be more of the kind of person I want to be, and I'm going to reshape my life to make it happen.

So I came to two conclusions.

First. I am going through my house bit by bit and I am getting rid of everything that I do not use regularly and/or that is not so hard to acquire (or needed in emergency) that I can bear it.

My bathroom has like 15 towels. There are two of us. There's so many they end up all over the counter and floor, the stack toppling off the shelf. They are out of here shortly. I'll save the 4-5 that are big thick beach towels is all. I have a big wall cupboard and an oversized sink cabinet that are stuffed with stupid things I never use and probably 30 bottles of stuff. It's out of here. My chronically crowded, cluttered bathroom has enough storage space, given there's two of us, that it ought to be nearly zen minimalist. Really, this should be applied to my whole house.

Make it so! I will LET THINGS GO.

Second. I am going to make a page for donations on the dojo site, and put buttons on my various websites, and anybody who wants to donate can.

I'll let people spec out what project/thing it's for if they want, and I'll keep a public tally of everything in/out so folks know what it's really for. There is no excuse for acting like a martyr and there is no excuse for keeping viewers anywhere, let alone members of a member-driven project, from actually helping shape their project or viewing stuff online if they so choose. It shouldn't even be a big deal and it might be helpful to me AND to the projects.

Make it happen! I will LET THINGS IN.

And maybe, with a little more "energy flow" of incoming and outgoing and "allowing", I can better deal with the stored clutter in my house -- and on my body -- and maybe, just maybe, it might even have some feng shui reality side-effect on my available time. Which is as limited as -- surprise -- my available money at the moment.

It is actually hard. I feel all this inner resistance to both things. But I think this is what personal growth is all about, is about recognizing your limitations and proactively doing something to cure them and bring balance to yourself.

I'll put the donation page up tomorrow. For now, off to clean the house!

The Big RV Closet

2008-03-06T19:12:00.000-08:00

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 28 February 2007

It's long been a bit of standing humor in the Remote Viewing field. You see, there's all these folks who allegedly would give "credence" to the various claims of public personalities, as soon as they appear (Real Soon Now). Or, who will help-redeem and demonstrate Remote Viewing itself, whether its methods or its numbers, by showing up just when we most need them.

Some refer to it as the Big RV Closet.

So every time someone referred to people -- seemingly legions of them, no less -- they had worked with in their insanely secret intell unit that wasn't of the projects now collectively called Star Gate, who would validate their sole and/or superior expertise, we were to understand that this was a reference to the Big RV Closet.

And, every time someone referred to their secret RV group who Real Soon Now was going to go public and change the world by showing 'em how it was done, we knew it was another link to the Big RV Closet.

***

Well, there are those of us who, no matter how gullible we might seem, have always rather hoped that the Big RV Closet was actually real. At the least, for the latter group of people: The "serious viewers working on their own privately."

Now I've run into a variety of groups over the last dozen years, and finding some that weren't cults or deluded or doing more to practice cold-reading and wishful-thinking than psi, has been easier said than done. But I am sure there are some. I pray there are some. Somewhere.

Knowing how many people have been trained in psi methods over the years, and how many have surely taught themselves, whether via videos or books or websites or whatever, it doesn't take a genius to observe that statistically, there just oughtta be more of us (doing more than talk) in the active "field" than there are.

So we hope, we hope A LOT, that a whole lot of other viewers we would surely relate to, are in fact in that Big RV Closet, and that one day they will come through for us, and prove to have been doing something useful all this time.

Not like RV doesn't have enough cargo cults as it is, but it's almost like we have another quiet one, too: all of us waiting for those secret people to come out of the dark and perform brilliantly at applications and help move the field forward someday... someday, they'll save RV from being quite so overwhelmed by lunatics and undersupported by hands-on viewing. Someday. Any Day Now.

While some of us were working the trenches to give RV a decent image for newbies and media, to welcome new people to something less insane than other options, to establish something longterm for the field, to build websites to help educate, archive and encourage information and, god forbid, actual viewing -- it is cheering to think that somewhere, someone not burdened with all that junk, folks who shrugged off the world at large to focus on themselves (a great idea many of us have certainly had more than once!), have just been viewing.

Please God. Let there be viewers.

Since they certainly aren't visible in any numbers, let them be in that Big RV Closet.

***

Following my post a few days ago (about The Invisible Majority -- or, the stupendous lack of people in the viewing field who are visibly viewing), I got quite a few emails. Well, a few were actually responding to a thread with similar content on TKR. I've had a few days to think about them, and I think I'd like to respond here, in general.

Some simply agreed with me, often with a lot more bite than I ever had about it!, so those I'll figure are covered.

A couple were from viewers I've known in the past who disappeared, for the most part. They told me, in essence, that they have each been working in a small private group for quite some time, that they are very serious about RV, and that they hope to come out of the closet eventually, and demonstrate what their work has brought them in skill. That is always cheering. It makes me feel relieved. Thanks for telling me. It does me no good and, at this time, RV no good, but it does give a shred of 'hope' that something might come of it. I appreciate that a lot.

Apparently, to varying degrees, they recognize that to those of us constantly facing the public, the slim-pickens of hands-on viewers working in-protocol in-public can be a little frustrating. Rather makes it seem like all the work put in -- and the number of hours we're talking about are pretty insane, over the years -- is nearly for nothing, if the result years later is a lack of increasing numbers.

I appreciate it when people care enough to say something. Even if it's just, "Hang in there. Everybody has their own part, we're working on ours, you're working on yours, and it'll all come together one day." Thanks for that.

***

In every subject of interest you'll find websites and more, created by people with a serious interest in the subject. It's human nature to want to support, in your own way, the larger subject, its field and people, and its information, especially when most of us waded through, directly or indirectly, a whole lot of information-chaos (if not outright mis/dis-information) to get to a better understanding.

It would be nice to think that our wading through the ridiculous BS this field has suffered over the years will, thanks to our efforts, educate more than just ourselves. It would be nice to think that as a result of such efforts, more people would learn about RV, more people would escape the anti-info about it out there, and the more people would eventually become decent viewers, good enough to handle applications, the one thing the field most needs.

But as we "move along," the years pass, and all the time, the lack of public viewing (in protocol I must add -- people viewing, even in the media, when someone standing a few feet from them knows the target, doesn't count, ok?!) -- it keeps coming back to focus again.

One person compared it to setting up tons of colleges specifically for engineering degrees, doing major publicity to get people into these engineering colleges, and from media to high school recruiting, making every biggest push toward getting people into engineering. And it works, and massive quantities of people go into engineering school. The tiny, underfunded, underactive engineering field waits with high hopes and excitement for that future. The population at large, with many folks interested, is encouraged for what this might bring to the people once they start graduating. And you do hear that lots of them did get degrees, tons of people.

But a dozen years later, there's still no engineers. There's no engineering going on anywhere that you see, except a couple independent efforts that already existed before that big drive to create engineers occurred. It would be perfectly reasonable for anybody -- especially someone truly interested in the field, and who cared deeply about its future -- to ask, "Where are all the engineers?!"

***

A couple folks had a different perspective.

I guess, if you do that in the same situation in RV, some people think you're "just trying to be political." I disagree. It doesn't take great emotion or angst to point out something you think is a problem. Cyclically, I gripe about this and move on. It's not like it dominates my life or something; it's just a super-obvious problem that anybody with a brain ought to be able to see, and only irrational denial would pretend isn't so. Even people I regularly debate about everything else will openly say the same thing; it's the one topic we agree on because it's the one thing that is the most painfully obvious in our field.

Why is it a big deal? Because applications is the #1 thing RV really needs. Everybody surely knows that. And applications requires viewers. Real viewers. Viewers who can work in a proper protocol. As long as the field continues to rake in millions for "training" related products and services, yet fails to result in publicly demonstrable viewers, this is going to be a problem. If people can't work in an apps group or in media, no problem; there are places online you can view in public. Every good session done in a proven protocol is a contribution to the larger field.

But a couple folks were really unhappy with me. It wasn't that the issue wasn't real. It was that I shouldn't have dared comment on it! Funny. Apparently we are supposed to let that gigantic a disconnect -from -reality keep happening, just as it has been happening for nearly a dozen years, and not notice, and not say anything. Like that Alcoholics Anonymous TV commercial that shows the bizarre dysfunctionality of the family: there is an elephant in the living room, and the kids are pretending not to see it; the mother is actually vacuuming around it; but nobody dares mentions it. You can bet, if one of those people said, "Hey! There's an elephant in the living room! What is wrong with this picture?!" that they would be the ones at fault for bringing it up. "Nobody else is complaining!" they might be told. "What difference does it make if there's an elephant taking up the entire living room? So what if you're one of the people in that room. What's it to you? What an ego you must have to think you have some right to complain!" Or, of course, "You're just trying to start a fight with the guy who let the elephant in! You're so negative! What's wrong with you?!" The idea that maybe the guy who let the elephant in should make some actual effort to do something about it, doesn't really get addressed, of course. That is the way of dysfunction. Family psychology dynamics don't just play out in families. They play out in any grouping of human beings, from the workplace to groups to whole 'fields' on the internet.

So in our engineering analogy, we are not supposed to go to the people promoting engineering in the media because they are selling it, we are not supposed to go to the engineering instructors at the college, we are not supposed to go to the groups or corps who provided the official engineering degrees, and ask them, "Excuse me... but where are all the engineers? Shouldn't we have a lot more bridges and buildings and stuff that would show us some sign of them? After all the time, the people, the money, the hype that have gone into creating all these tons and tons of engineers, doesn't it seem like at least the tiniest portion of them should be visible? Somewhere? Anywhere?"

Because you know, some people think such a thing would just be rude. How dare we question this. What incredible arrogance, to think that because we are IN the remote viewing field, that because we care about it, that because we care about its future, that we have some right to wonder, to ask that question.

***

Meanwhile, back in the closet, a grouchy murmuring comes from the dark. "You say there's no viewing visible in the field," they complain. "But here we are in the dark, and we're viewing! So you don't know! You don't know everything. You don't need to know. We are secret, but we're here, so why do you leave us out? You just assume only what you know of exists, apparently!"

Well gosh, that's sort of obvious isn't it? If something is invisible and unknown, there is no reason to 'assume' on it.

If Jane chooses to be secretive, and to hide in that Big RV Closet, doesn't participate publicly, doesn't view publicly, then NEWS FLASH: Jane is not "part of the field." What Jane's viewers are "part of" is the closet.

The idea of a 'field' of people is that in some way, they are interacting with each other, and they are contributing to a larger population and public-subject.

I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to tell the whole public aspect of the RV subject to stuff it, and go live in a closet of my own, where all the time I had could be dedicated just to me. I don't knock anybody who chooses to work privately. I don't pretend I don't understand the why, sometimes. I don't invalidate them. I expect that this would be a norm in fact -- it's simply that after a dozen years, I would expect some of those private groups to have turned up in public finally!

I don't have anything to say about them at all usually, because why should I? They are not part of the RV field by their own choice, so they are simply not applicable to the subject until that changes. I cannot recognize them as "part of the field" until they actually choose to become part of the field. That is their decision, not mine.

It ought to be evident that if someone chooses to be 'secret and hidden', that it's pretty ludicrous for them to get mad at someone else for not knowing about them, or for not 'assuming' they exist when there is no visible evidence of it. If someone in the public field fails to include them and their allegedly brilliant secret viewing, for them to be offended they got left out -- well, I think that might actually be too stupid even to address, but I felt I should cover all the emails not just some.

***

Why should I assume legions of great viewers exist in the closet? What evidence might there be for that assumption? Some Pollyanna-like wishful thinking? I have some of that. Not quite enough to cover an entire field of assumption, though. At this point there's more evidence for fairies than serious in-protocol viewers.

Those of us who deal with the public daily, with new viewers daily, with the push for getting people into "hands-on viewing" and not just talking about it indefinitely, want to believe. We have the utmost hope for the future of RV. We have reason to care about the subject, about its future. We wouldn't be spending ridiculous amounts of our personal time, some for many, many years now, to promote and educate and inform and encourage remote viewing in the world, if we didn't care about it. Of course its future is important to us. Of course its severe shortage of "viewers in public" -- actually viewing, in protocol -- is going to be concerning. There would be something weird if it didn't concern us, if we didn't care.

It isn't about politics, or personal dislike, or X vs. Y vs. Z methods, or some unchecked egomaniacal personality disorder (great quote). It's really pretty simple. Anybody with a brain has got to recognize this lack of public viewers as a factual issue.

The difference seems to be whether or not people are "concerned about it."

***

Apparently, a couple folks think anybody concerned about it must have some overwrought personal problem causing this "observation of concern." Sure. Why am I not surprised. People doing jack for the larger field of RV have no reason to care. What's it to them? It's not their hours, their life, their free work, their efforts, put toward a positive outcome. In short, since they have so little vested in the subject, why should they care?

But in my view, there are some people including me, who would really like to take their ball and go home -- and focus solely on their personal aims. But when there is so much insanity reigning in the field, and such a limited number of sources supporting sanity, and an even more severely limited number of sources supporting hands-on viewer development -- it seems a lot more like abandonment than simply changing focus.

If there were more active viewers, if there were more people carrying the field, not by claims-and-sales but by actual viewing, it wouldn't feel like such a pitiful situation. It wouldn't feel so much like RV needs support, and defense, and constant pushing for hands-on work. It wouldn't feel like an obligation to sacrifice personal time and energy and sleep to support this online field because there is so little "real" available it seems like it's got to have someone helping. RV at large would feel like it had its own momentum and didn't need to be pushed uphill.

But that hasn't happened yet. And no, it doesn't count if it's happening in secret where it's not doing anything but them or their little clique any good. It won't count until it actually contributes to the overall field of RV.

***

For those who work in private and seriously intend to do something useful with that one day, more power to you. I totally support that. Here's hoping you can "come forward" prior to some bozo screwing with training students gets sued and ends up making half the field illegal with some overzealous follow-on legislation. Here's hoping you can come forward sooner rather than later and apply RV to any kind of applications.

I support ANY kind of hands-on RV done in protocol. (Since working out of protocol does more to harm RV than help it, as all our Comet-borne Pathogen-In-A-Can bad memories remind us.) I support any group, of any method, or any perspective on RV, that is doing actual hands-on RV in protocol, without it being some new mercenary sales effort geared to all the vulnerable newbies who want to be omniscient.

I would and will support that in any way I can.

***

For those who work in private and will probably never end up doing something constructive in public... I guess I just don't care. My priorities haven't shifted in a dozen years in RV, although my vision of what supports them have. I support RV. Real RV. Hands-on RV. Legitimate information, useful education, productive opportunities for people learning, and practical applications for the Art. People, groups, media, and information, either fit into that definition, or they do not. As long as they do not, they are off my radar. To the degree or "spots" where they do not, they are outside my interest. When those folks in the Big RV Closet choose to be useful to someone besides themselves, when they choose to become a part of "the field" in public, then we will all know of them, and they will not be "excluded" from blogging editorials or forum commentaries that rightfully assume their nonexistence.

***

We're still waiting for more than a handful of people to view in a public protocol. Especially those experts.

Twelve years now.

Ever the patient,
PJ

What is The Matrix? A Primer.

2008-03-06T18:41:00.000-08:00

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 25 February 2007

I found this ancient post I'd made one day on TKR and thought I should've blogged it instead. Better late than never.

Remote Viewing has a lot of terminology, but one of the most famous terms is THE MATRIX.

What is The Matrix?

It's God's Database, see, and you provide your target#, which has been psychically double-bound to your target like velcro duct tape within the matrix, via the tasker (by a process so confidential we'd have to shoot you if we told you, but bear in mind it's illegal in 18 states and the UK and especially offensive to those of marvian Advanced Moral Standing).

Your target# as written on paper is rewritten into MSQL (Matrixian Structured Query Language, pronounced "pray" for short), and rendered in order of submission sequence to the quantum asynaptical process unit. The queuing process goes something like this:

{in a lovely, automated, sexy female Jetsons-like voice:}
Welcome to the Matrix Universal Akashic Repository System.
Please listen to our menu, as our options have changed!
Para habla guadacanal, kanji Brie.
For wandering blindly in the dark, please press 1.
For staring at the paper until your eyes water, please press 2.
For rolling excitedly through an amazing session that has no relation to your target, please press 3.
For small obscure furled-pieces of universally archetypal symbols condensed into the names of flowers, press 4.
To hear this menu again, please press the triangle button.
To exit this sytem without commitment, please say "Zzzzzzzz".

HENCE your query finally makes sense to the Matrix, which is not to say it's the correct question to begin with of course, but WHEREAS prayers don't fit into a database any better than "soon" or "eventually" fit into date fields on spreadsheets, it is necessary that some basic coding and tweaking go on invisibly in the background---I'm sure you understand. At which point, having been de-rendered back into its original meaning before your puny little brain distorted it, the Matrix is asked:

SELECT * FROM MY_UNIVERSE
WHERE BEATPATTERN IN (0,1) AND
(PROBABILITY = 'YES' AND GULLIBILITY > 0) AND
TARGETID = 1983^12E8Z.123879ZZ123.67841-Q AND
(FOCUS LIKE '%USEFUL OR DESCRIPTIVE%' OR
FOCUS IN ('LOST IN SPACE','OFF ON MARS'))
GROUP BY 'C-S-T-Q-M-RV STAGE'
ORDER BY STRUCTUREPOINT

Finally after all that laborious work that is invisible to you (so now you know how amazing the universe truly is), the Matrix processes your MSQL request, and gives you back a response which can vary widely, such as

Exception 5200.718: Failure to complete socket.

You will know when you get this message by the way you realize you've been sitting there for 10 minutes with your eyes glazed over and there's nothing on paper. Or:

Exception 198201.123: String Truncation Error

Which means that unbeknownst to you (since you're double blind when viewing), you tried to ask a complex question such as "what is the psychological state of the target individual on June 16, 1982, at 1:00PM," but the input was so oversized that it cannot be processed, and/or you hope it can't be, because if it is, the Matrix will be required to give you a highly abbreviated, condensed but 100% totally accurate answer like:

Gouda.

And as you well know, without the Mondo Super Psychic Demon Decryption Ring Of Darkness -- which costs more than money, if ya know what I mean -- you will not be able to "unfurl" this decrypted message. Alternatively, the Matrix may return a message such as:

Exception 1237.19 Queryparam invalid binding

which as everyone knows, means that your tasker failed to do the proper left-ankle massage prior to meditating and/or only meditated for 14.5 minutes instead of the full 15 when binding your task# to the target in the Matrix, setting up a whole slew of cascade failures that you cannot possibly be held responsible for as a viewer. Should you have any session that fails to reveal sufficient omniscience (which method Q^Z-RV totally ensures), you can be certain that somewhere along the line, it is all the tasker's fault.

(Should you be unable to blame the tasker for social reasons, simply note that your task ID consists of characters which have surely seen each other before at some point in the history of time, and you are totally accurate about what you perceived, but it makes perfect sense that you are perceiving a metallic mold from a donut shop in Pompeii rather than the target of today. I mean, time has no meaning, and someone else obviously already used that number, so what can be expected?)

But of course those are only occasional glitches, and usually the Matrix is much more forthcoming. At double the speed of light, dating back in time to before the tasker was even conceived of by their ancestors, the answer to your query will be beamed into your local universe. You will know this has happened because:

a - the squirrels aka tree rats in your backyard will immediately begin discussing the more profound implications of childhood Eriksonian autonomy phase interruption and how this has clearly affected the psychology of your target. Your inability to understand a perfectly clear conversation as anything more than "squeak squish chirp click" is of course your responsibility, not the Matrix's.

b - your hand will make a small, slightly complex, irregular, completely indecipherable scribble on your page known as "scribblograms", an advanced technology used by many but first explored by Fred "The Toad", viewer par exquisiscribbloinaire, a Guam researcher who wrote all about this last millennia, on the charming but politically cranially-recursive land of laSheba Oui. Every aspect of the question your task posed, including symbolic, allegorical, circumstantial, relational, conceptual, and descriptive, will be encompassed in this scribble, as well as the individual's medical profile, FBI file contents, and his thoughts about lunch that day.

If this is not perfectly obvious when seeing the scribble -- right there plain as day in front of you, after all, sheesh -- it is simply that you have spent an insufficient amount of time practicing that scribblogram in different sized little boxes, and/or you have clearly not been working with the Buchanabilly Ultra Audio Matrixian Scribbliomatic Generator, which all serious viewers really ought to have. (Will someone nice please share a modern copy with me because my version dates from 1912 and worked well on my abacus but does not work on Windows XP.)

Should this not resolve your decryption woes, I recommend you purchase all 17 DVDs for Stage 81.29B, which specifically deal with this issue, as presented by Corporal I.M. Ferengi, who trains bylliuns and bylliuns of viewers to be better than anything the government ever had, all of which would be predicting major world events months in advance within a +/- 10 second range, except that unfortunately they are all busy laboring on the supersecret Cheese Of Doom project under Mount Baldy, so not even one of them is available for demonstrable public examples. I'm sure anybody reasonable would understand. I mean we're talking the CHEESE of DOOM here people. Get your priorities straight.

Please bear in mind that the asynaptic quantumly connected triple-redundant consciousness loop between you and the Matrix is subject to the slightest shift of attention during your process. Your answer may change literally as you get it, if you lose clarity of focus during the process. If this should occur, I recommend the cartoon poster of the infamous I.M.F. as well as the full CD-ROM package of stage 166.5 (version IV of that module) which has inspired several underpaid customer service representatives of the CD mfg & sales company to come onto I.M.F.'s website under 412 names each and wax poetic about its amazing effectiveness.

Should you have any further questions regarding the Matrix, look for my 872-page hardbound book "Brief Readings Regarding the Scribbliograms of Time," in which I go into this subject and make several predictions of the future, including the year 2021 alien-cloning of George Z. Bush the 6th (May He Live Forever) (which btw I predict will be a total failure, since clearly, his ancestors were Replacements to begin with, and you know what a 6th generation copy looks like! all crooked and fuzzy!). I even reveal secrets about daily life in the year 4914, when 3000 years of "etcetera" will have left us with a polite little Earth Society of 214 people living in domes. (Don't ask what happened to everybody else.)

The Five and Dive

2008-03-06T18:32:00.000-08:00

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.

The Amazing Mystery of the Invisible Majority

2008-03-06T18:16:00.000-08:00

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 21 February 2007

The TKR Project was created at a time-point when methods people seemed at war with one another, the social politics of personalities were so bad that even humor couldn't be used, and the exclusionary nature of this vs. that version of psi methodology used for RV created chaos. Someone using a method like TDS, should they dare say something in public, was likely to end up in a fight about how someone disliked their trainer, rather than any intelligent conversation about viewing. It was impossible. I would say, please can't we focus on the subject not the person? And those defending the person disliked me for not defending them, and those against the person disliked me for not attacking them, and nobody (as usual) wanted to talk about actual RV.

I felt, and still feel, that the entire field/subject of RV was fragile and under threat. From fraud and marketing revisions to actual government disinformation. It would only take a couple high profile lawsuits to get a law made against selling training. Hypnosis for example has come insanely close to being legislated out of the hands of any but PhDs more than once, and were it not for PhDs with a lot of clout fighting to keep it more free, it'd be a done deal. RV has a whole lot less to support it should any legal threat arise. And I suspect if the gov't wanted that threat to arise and spawn legislation or law, it would. Maybe it hasn't simply because as a field we haven't yet seemed altogether competent enough to be a genuine danger to all the secrets some sources want to keep. Eventually we will though, and what then? If we are still a field of a bunch of individuals in chaos; if we are still a field that is 99.9% focused on money-based drives and only .1% on actual hands-on viewing, our field will be very, very easy to kill.

Far more powerful, more public, more funded, more media famous, more credential'd-expert fields have vanished from the map of knowledge over the last century. It is my intent that RV not go this way. I document history and make archives, I try to promote current participation and create archives, and I work to keep a focus on hands-on viewing, as well as on all-viewers-integration, because I believe these are the things that are the most strength for RV as a field and subject. I don't want to see history totally revised, the field suppressed or twisted, and its future marginalized if not nearly extinguished by the issues against it. The only thing that bothers me is how many people allegedly care about RV but seem to have utterly zero drive to do anything proactive in its favor.

The nature of RV's current reality is that nearly the only thing driving the 'field' forward is money, and here and there a little ego-altruism: yet the minute "corporatism and cash" become the only real "driving" motives in a field (let alone ego), truth and reality and historical accuracy are a thing of the past. The field was founded on science, but due to lack of funding, the layman's quarter is really the only thing moving much. It's a tragedy. But the strength of a field, like online archives, is built on the conglomerate, cumulative input of many. If even a very small percentage of those many would make the effort to do whatever they feel supports the larger field -- anything -- the field as a whole would be vastly stronger.

***

So the TKR project was created to bring people together. To let CRV and TRV and SRV and TDS and HRVG and psychics and video-trained viewers and book- or web- trained viewers and self trained viewers hang out in one place, as if they were people who had something in common, which they are. Like the old fable about the sons and the bundle of sticks, there is strength in numbers.

People can hang out there and still think their method is the way, the truth and the light, and still think that everybody with XRV is a deluded incompetent fool, but chances are if they actually *did* hang out there and view and look at sessions, they would gradually be forced to recognize that anybody serious about RV deserves some respect for it, that most all the methods can produce good data, etc.

The Galleries was something I figured would let every method demonstrate what it was best configured for. This is, in a layman's sense, though not scientific, still great research. Anybody right now can go look at a ton of sessions done on the same target, by many people, in many methods, sometimes more than one session on the same target, and can actually SEE how things come through, what varies by method, and what targets so often come through well (the fireworks at the olympics) vs. come through badly (the volcanic mud cauldron). When we see that, it's not an 'answer' without real science, but is it not a lot more education than we as laymen had before? Sure, "that's been studied", all the money and years of research that most of us will never see more than a few old white papers about; 95%+ of it will never be known to us. We will learn on our own if we will at all; nobody is going to help us. That's just one example. Getting people together to view can provide a whole lot of education to onlooking viewers.

In terms of differences in methods, some of what we see is apparent, of course; task a formal-method person with anything nebulous and they'll get physical symbology all through the session instead of literal data, because the target isn't literal, and the method is designed for things literal. The psychics however might be able to tell you about it. On the other hand, the psychics often have only a few lines of info (though it may be brilliant) on a target, and they may only be able to do that 1 in 5 or 1 in 20 times; whereas part of the side-point of the methods was to build in more consistency, and the common structure combined with a great deal more data (and of specific types usually) is often better suited to certain approaches to tasking, not to mention evaluation. I happen to think both have a strength, and that a good tasker, a good team, could utilize people with different methods and strengths in a positive way.

Some methods are more internal (visualizing components), while some are solely external. Some are altered state and some are not. I believed that if we had viewers of many methods working tasks, over time, we would be able to compare. Not that any viewer represents their method; but that generalities like I mention above start to become more clear when you get a bulk of things together. And people might eventually consider trying what they saw done, getting more educated.

I think curiosity is natural. I trained in CRV, and then I trained with graduate students in TRV and SRV, and I even spent awhile working in the free public docs put out for TDS, and I've waded through the regular and advanced HRVG manuals, as well as pieces of Silva, Scientology, occult disciplines, etc. (And now, years later, I'm lucky to remember any of them very well LOL.) I think everything is interesting. Bringing people together often provides more "cross cultural" and "inter- disciplinary" minds.

And I think some frameworks are better for some people than others, and it might have more to do with the people than with the framework. Or as we said in the TKR statement of intent when we opened the project:

TKR's Formal Founding Intent
There are many roads to personal and psychic development, and every individual chooses their own. Some roads are more appropriate for a given person, and this might have little to do with the road and much to do with the person. It is the right (and even spiritual obligation) of every person to get as clear a view as they can of the road(s) they might wish to walk, and to set forth in whatever direction and manner they choose.
In a subject so wide it applies to the innate faculties of every human being, there's room for many roads to lead to the same goal, without any crowding more hazardous than highly spirited competition. The evolution and strength of the field of Remote Viewing is of value to the human race: the information and communion provides important roads to the development of us as persons and as a species. The Remote Viewing field faces many challenges, and some are severe. The more community the field can muster, despite diversity, the better (and longer) the field can be of service to and for our people.
The Ten Thousand Roads (TKR) Remote Viewing and Dowsing project has something for everybody. TKR charges nothing, pays all server and traffic costs, handles all software issues, and staffs the online areas. Our staff represents many Remote Viewing methods and affiliations, to provide balance and fairness to all. This includes at various times TRV, SRV, CRV, HRVG, ERV, TDS, self-trained, un-trained, natural 'psychics', all interested and involved at least peripherally in the Remote Viewing or dowsing fields.
This project might allow more inter-disciplinary understanding, from having in one place (separate yet near) different perspectives. This could be a good thing. How much the potential is fulfilled will be up to those who participate, of course. Come play!
Intending the best! July 4, 2003.

I thought if people talked together and played together, there might be some friction, but gradually the field at large would be stronger for it, because people would see what the others could do and realize there was reason for that.

***

It sort of altered my plans that most of the "warring factions" never showed up at all. Instead, their conspicuous absence led to a much higher ratio in the project of internal method, altered state method, and unstructured method, viewers. I defended and built-in their right to be there too, as long as they would work inside an RV protocol, but it goes without saying that since my background is the methods world, and the vast majority of the field online is made up of methods-trained people, I expected the dominant viewing to be of that. But I've been unable to budge people to participate.

When I do get someone to give me any reason, I hear things like, "__[insert trainer name]__ doesn't want us to view there, because __[insert amazing amounts of often hilariously (or infuriatingly) untrue gossip here]___". Which makes me feel like it's a conflict of interest between making money vs. supporting RV, on the part of someone who'd do that, since they aren't offering the same tools to their viewers as an option, and it rather seems like the biggest resistance is either that the viewers will be abysmal and hurt their income by being a bad example to others, or the viewers will see others doing well with a different method (or no method) which will hurt their income by sending them to different trainers or no trainers for all the next- course levels and options and so on. And maybe the people who say that are not telling the truth, although I sort of doubt this as a few of them I've known for years.

But in the end, if even a fraction of that is true, it only hurts RV at large, by diminishing the strength of the community, attempts to withhold support from the most proactive and time/money-invested free offering resource the field has (though I think IRVA could rightly claim equal effort at the least), definitely does not help viewers, who only benefit from practice (and the formal method schools of thought have been using target pools for eons so that should be no issue) and since more viewers are semi-'alone with it' than not, that's really important. And all that why... because it isn't their particular niche, it doesn't make them money, it doesn't set them in stone as the only/ primary expert? I don't know why, maybe that is not the reason, that is just all my imagination can come up with, given the circumstance. Maybe it is unkind of me or even paranoid of me to imagine that is the reason. But since nobody is giving me any other explanation that sounds fair concerning the reasons, I'm forced to guess.

I ask people. All the time! Aside from that, which is rare but occasionally the response, I don't get any reasons. "Why does the group of people claiming the most expertise avoid demonstration of anything?" It's like a great mystery of RV.

And after awhile, over time, it does rather irk me. My occasional attitude on TKR stems from that.

Understand I built a project just for CRV in 1997. Paul and Joe and Gene and Greg as I recall were on the private message board willing to answer more in-depth personal viewer questions; that was very kind of them. And almost nobody came. Let alone viewed actively enough to have questions for them. Pointedly because the primary trainer I built it at the encouraged-behest-of, for personal-politic reasons, refused to tell anybody it existed, even when asked point blank. (Despite many people who told me they actually bought training after he told them about the great internet follow-up available--which back then, was only that.) I spent a huge amount of time and money on it, while working and raising a toddler, and I resented, a lot, the effort put in, and the life I gave up from my time and my kids' time, for nothing.

The old VWR list was the outreach arm of that project, but that's all people remember, thanks to stupid amounts of time spent making its archives. So you see it's not just a modern day issue. I have a history with building things just to support methods viewers and nobody bothering to view, to show up, to even do so out of nothing more than a minimal effort to support a good resource for the field at large.

Years later I built TKR. This time it's for everybody, not just CRV. And guess what. Again, CRV - and as a helluva coincidence, the other methods based on the original CRV -- won't show up and pointedly WILL NOT VIEW.

Good thing I invited everybody from any viewing direction, or me and the staff would still be sitting there alone.

Tunde (CRV and TDS), Daz (CRV and SRV), Josh (TRV), Dave (TDS) and Marv (CRV) are the primary methods viewers "that I know about" who are actively viewing online in a way that at least once in awhile, someone else besides some teeeny private group sees -- and all of them are gonzo on proper protocol, which is a blessed relief. There may be more in the galleries that just enter a summary or some data from a paper session of course (I know of probably two dozen other galleries viewers who were *trained* in a formal method, I just don't know that they use it; they don't seem to, or they are very sparse with the data they share.).

I don't know more than a tiny fraction of the people in the dojo, so it's hard to say. Frankly I keep wondering where the heck they are all coming from, since I honestly thought that around 400-500max was the whole field. There's over 4,300 registrations now. Some of them are bound to be duplicates. But still.

At this point, far more of the methods-trained field has never heard of me than knows me, so I can't even take the fact that they don't view in protocol publicly in any way personally (as if every single person from every single method is avoiding every single public opportunity to view that my projects sponsor, all because I am so evil. Of course, zillions will go drool on Ed Dames and hand over money to better-learn how we're all gonna die... again. Go figure). Even if there was a hefty dose of that it couldn't be the only reason. In part because this problem of apparent-non-viewing dates back to the 90's, when the 700-1000 emails in my box average per week suggested that a whole lot of people knew me and had nothing against me. (That was before I questioned the method, the trainers, and made an even-bigger deal of insisting that 'all methods' be included in things, at which point I got emails like, "You've betrayed your own!!" and I assume my public charm was pretty well lost.)

I could understand some, even most, people saying "I prefer to view alone" or "only with my friends" or whatever. In fact I would *expect* that. That's one reason that TKR has "offsite" tasking/viewing tools -- to support people working OUTside the project, with nifty tools nobody else could afford to build. But not the overwhelming percentage of people we are talking about here.

Maybe I should quit expecting groups of people who call themselves viewers to view enough that at least a teeeeeeny fractional % of them would end up, sometimes, with in-protocol sessions seen by others. Maybe the bizarre invisibility of methods viewers working in protocol publicly is for some deep dark secretive reason that nobody has ever figured out, which has nothing whatsoever to do with insecurity -- which I call cowardice but then Daz beats me up for that and he's a black belt, so, let's just stick with "insecurity" shall we. Maybe I have it all wrong. I might. I sure hope so. And for years now I keep waiting for someone to give me some more reasonable explanation.

Any time now.

Presentation Sessions

2008-03-06T18:07:00.000-08:00

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 05 July 2006

I'd like to blog a bit more about the idea, function and purpose of what I call remote viewing "presentation sessions."

First, let's point out that the concept on its own isn't novel. In CRV and its various method derivatives, the session summary at the end of the session is, depending on your trainer and/or method, a "light" form of this. Some trainers request it simply summarize the data in the session. Others, allowing that at the end of the session when the summary is done the viewer is assumed to be in "better target contact," will let the viewer emphasize or de-emphasize information from the session, when doing the summary. This ranges, depending on the trainer, in degree: some let you actually "add and remove" data as well. However, it is still just a summary---it is paragraph form. It's a small thing tacked onto the end of the session.

A presentation session is a whole second psi-based product. I believe that in theory; perhaps if done well, if this itself became a skill; this product could be an improvement on the raw session (additional information, and better understanding of what info we already have).

Sharing Data with non-viewers: Session Issues

The people most likely to use RV data aren't viewers, but people asking them for sessions. Unless it's an RV project manager, these are the people least likely to know how to deal with the data as presented. On the internet, most session-sharing is done with the public.

There are a number of "issues" with raw remote viewing sessions when it comes to them being comprehensible for the public. The TKR Galleries have actually demonstrated some of these quite well, although anybody who works with a lot of other viewers would see them.

Novice Issues

For beginners, there are the primary problems of AOLs and focus. Let's take Jane, a new viewer, as example. It does not matter whether she is trained in a formal method or not; the basics, you can hear/learn even online. Jane has been taught that she is supposed to write down everything that goes through her mind during the session process. She dutifully writes down everything. This results in a session that is quite a bit not about the target, in part because Jane's mind is wandering like crazy, but also because Jane is still new to RV, so she really doesn't have a grasp yet on what is so fleeting that it's just unavoidable association (if we recorded every instance of that, it would be an endless word-association essay, not an RV session), vs. nebulous but still clear enough to count as data or at least AOL.

Also, Jane may be recording her process like a diary (and that's ok), and if she is formally trained so she's even got admonitions and acronyms to track every possible annoyance or event in her internal or external environments. When they get to the point of adding in all their active-AOL process ("...blue, blue-grey, or is it green? maybe tan. I don't know. My sister just turned on the radio. It's really hot in here. I think it's brown actually. But then I guessed brown on the last session and was wrong... ok, I'll say blue. Hard. Shiny...") I want to bellow, JUST THE FACTS MA'AM! People reviewing sessions don't want to know the viewer had an itch. They want to know about the target. Getting all that junk out of the way of what is presented can be good.

Then there is the issue that sometimes (especially method-trained new viewers) they AOL every damn thing---down to outright word-association strings---and even AOL half their actual data in their insecurity and fear of being wrong. This tends to result in viewers who, if the AOL is accurate, want to take credit for having hit on something, but if it's inaccurate, they figure it doesn't count because it's AOL. Analytical overlay is in my view poorly misunderstood by many viewers in the field at large, and ends up with some simplistic cookie-cutter definition that might be helpful for a brief time just in the door, but after that is silly if not detrimental in its shallow interpretation.

So, between the three things above, a new viewer's session can end up with a ton of stuff that is confusing, distracting or diffusing in their "raw" session. Learning to go through that and make a "clean version" has several educational benefits.

Other Issues

For more developed viewers, there are the primary issues of personal process and structured method.

For the method part of it, unless today I want to know more about CRV, I just don't really care what they got in their long strings of stage 2's or their matrix of stage 4 or whatever. What I really want to know is, "Tell me about the target." Because THEY are the expert at their method, they are far better equipped to package that information for "public perusal" than the public at large is. I find it a pain to wade through handwritten columns on a ton of pages. Also, some session methods are so complicated that nobody who isn't extensively trained in them could really make sense of them, and some even have some pages never shown in public sessions (as 'method secrets' or 'working pages'). Seeing the original "raw data" can be confusing, or can even be incomplete to begin with in the latter case. A readable summary of the data, and the various sketches, is far more ideal as an end-product.

I realize that this process may leave out some data, if the viewer doesn't feel, during the presentation session process, that 17 variations on the word "bright" really matter. If there are four pages of descriptives, my god, please don't tell me---for reference, great to have, but for the main presentation, I want to know what is "important and relevent" about the target, not every possible microscopically accurate piece of information that could conceivably be applied to it. (As McMoneagle once said, Some viewers will provide pages of descriptive information that covers the details of a leather jacket and its zipper that the person in the target were wearing, and it's "100% accurate!"; but really, what might be important is, "There is a man with a gun in his hand.")

It isn't that I am not interested in the raw data; depending on the viewer and session, sometimes I really am. It's just that as far as public presentations go, I would like the viewer to be the one who, after the session-proper, provides the information in a readable format that at least partly makes sense to the average reader. Only the viewer is in the position to judge what is "most important and relevent" about a target---that's the psi! But when you begin a session, you're likely to get a little bit of everything. The viewer, at the end of the session when their target contact is better developed, can go back through the session and have a better feel for what really matters, what deserves emphasis, vs. what doesn't. Same as with some method variants on the summary, except I'm talking about literally a whole reiteration-with-possible-revision of the session itself. Might they be wrong? Heck yeah! But learning to be right about this is what RV comes down to.

This is not analysis in session because it isn't being done in session; it is a second psychic product that is based on the viewer's own psi evaluation (the session-part-2) of the raw data (session-part-1). Done before feedback obviously; ideally, is done following the session, as an "extension" of it.

Personal Process

The other issue is personal process. First there is the psi process itself. I sometimes write down not just the data I get, but HOW I got the data. I have a ton of personal acronyms I use for things in some sessions that would not be understood by anybody else, and I don't see why I should have to educate the whole world on my method in order to be able to have my viewing data understood. Allegedly, we the viewers are the experts on viewing (heh), and if anybody ought to be arranging a "presentation understandable to the public" of data, it oughtta be the viewer.

There are many different "kinds" of visuals, or ways to get them. There is even more than one way to "hear" stuff. Then there's mini-movies as I call them, and seeming bi-lo moments, and in-body feelings, and ghost-body feelings, and thoughtballs, and so on. "How" I interpret something is going to depend, often, on how it comes across. I can tell you that if I see something with a "stark clarity that is realer than real" for a moment, it's usually the target. Not just like the target. THE target. (For me this is more likely to happen with a single color than anything. For some people though, they get a whole visual.) If I simply see something like a picture, it is likely a memory-clip, that will be "best match" but alas, my mind uses concept, function, and other factors in its matching process, so it may or may not be a purely physical-match. If I see a visual that moves, or I see a clip of a person "acting out" something (an arm hands me something, a person strikes a pose, whatever), the first is "symbolic" and the second is "charadic" as I call it. If however I find myself "flying over" the target, and my vision is actually kind of fuzzy but is combined with a "gut feel and knowing," then I usually trust that data as being totally literal. This is critical to the understanding of how your mind works and what data you are actually getting.

The mind uses all these different kinds of presentations just like verbally we use "inflection" to modify and even reverse meaning. So in session, I may often write down how something comes across, or some piece of that as a reference. The onlooking public has no idea if this is itself data, or what this might mean. Like some points of method, it can be more confusing than helpful to readers.

Private Data

Then there's the issue of "private data." I wouldn't reveal highly personal data about an individual to the public, even if the individual was some dead public figure. I would want to record it, because the session record is first and foremost FOR ME. But that doesn't mean I want to share it with the world. Once I see feedback, I can decide whether or not that information is appropriate to be shared. If this were science, we would provide raw data, and we would not be worried about issues like ethics or privacy because science would be targeting us mostly on basic physical, nicely judgeable, statistics-deriving sort of targets that would make us all die of boredom. If it were applications, well, we assume there'd be a project manager (PM) in place to make sure target were cool, and so, I feel the client is paying for raw data as well as presentation data (which because it is a psi product, is itself additional information, even if it's only a slight revision in emphasis of the original data). But there is potentially private data of other sorts, such as spontaneous personal insights one may have during session, about their own life, or a friend.

All of those things are reasons why a "presentation session" is a useful thing. But there's much more.

When I get data, much of the time I get far too much, too fast, to properly record. I can have half-second "experiences" that would take 15 minutes to really flesh out, and many of them per a 20 minute session. Even the time it takes to note whatever strikes me as most obvious, and doesn't take longer than 5 seconds to write, may be a distraction of sorts---I have to shift into more of a left-brain state to do verbal data. Worse, if I'm still in good target contact, I'm probably an idiot about what I write down... I'm not left-brain enough, basically. If I don't make this shift and take all the time I need to record something, then I have not accurately or well provided the data. If I do, I have probably trashed some degree of the rest of my session, because instead of staying in close target contact and letting it flow-in while I can, I had to turn my attention to the outflow of communication.

It literally becomes a process where the session-recording and the data-incoming are competition for each other. No matter which one you focus on, you lose some of the other, and despite the on-paper perfect-world assumption that we record "as" we get data, that's an ad-hoc "try"---anybody experienced with this knows that there is a balance and a compromise here. Many people shy from method structures when they start feeling the structure is literally competing with the experience, and they are forced to give precedence to the experience instead, as the structure is designed to support that, not compete with that. In the early days or if not much data or not too fast, the structure can help lead you through it, but when you get plenty of data on your own and fast, it can be like a friction brake on the whole psychic process. But it isn't just structure, it's literally the act of having to write it all down.

When the future makes room for the present

Say I am sitting in session. I have a sudden flash of something, and then other data. I might not have time to write down all the details of my first flash. Further, because I'm in session, I may be really stupid about words, I often can't think of the words I want to use for things when in session. I really only have time to write down some kind of basic reference to the data.

If I stop to write down a lot more, I've pulled away from target contact, and trying to get to the correct words often sends me far toward a more linear state of mind better for writing and worse for viewing. If I stay and obsess on that data point to flesh it out, I will find myself trying to decide 'which part of it matters' in order to make the decision about what to write down, and in the end, I will probably end up in AOL-land, or really hacked because I wrote down 4 aspects of something, but it was 2 others I didn't mention that turned out to matter.

The most important thing is my target contact, continuing it and increasing it, so that it becomes as solid as possible by the end of the session.

When I tell myself that I am doing a presentation session afterward, I quit worrying about "which part of this ton of nested info I should be pulling out and writing down fast and moving on" because the decision is actually partly irrelevent: I will be going back through the session and then I can flesh out all of it if I want. Also, with the benefit of additional data and better target contact, what aspect of that 'flash' of nested info matters more than others, might be more clear. So I will have more data, more experience, more target contact, and yet probably a little better linear-state of mind than during the raw session, all of which can contribute to my "much fuller disclosure" of all the data available to me.

Because that's really what it comes down to. In the first raw session I don't have time to get down the "fullness and subtleties and context" of the data going by, and if I take the time I'm unlikely to maintain the kind of target contact that leads to an overall session being a good job. This especially goes for the "experiences" that are mini-movies, bilocations, aspect interaction, target interaction, etc. where one second can literally be an entire "experience", not just "a data point." It can literally be an entire page of narrative.

I have not done a ton of this, although I began this approach many years ago; I have seldom had time to view consistently and usually don't have time for the extra step in session. But of all the presentation sessions I have done, I have never once had it NOT be a great improvement on the original session when it comes to being understood by others. Even the process of taking it out of a structure, typing it up so it's readable (I scan sketches), getting rid of all the personal session comments that relate to process rather than data, can hugely improve the presentation of any session. But if you also have more detailed, better-stated information, that's a genuine quality improvement of the best kind.

I think of it like a book. When we get a book, it does not have the extended margin size, the printer crop marks, extensive editorial scribbling on it, etc. That may be the "raw product" but since the product is being presented to others, there is a second, "presentation product" that is geared toward people just picking it up and reading it and having some clue what it means.

Granted, we don't always have time, especially in practice, to put yet-more effort into each session. But on special occasions, I believe it's worth the effort. I have learned as much about myself, my data, how I think, etc. in the process of making the presentation sessions, as anything else. I'm inclined to think that even if they were not used, the simple process of compiling them is itself a healthy process for the viewer. Give it a try!

Data Ethics

2008-03-06T18:04:00.000-08:00

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 03 July 2006

Darn I had fun on the HAARP Mission this week. (See it at TKR.)

When making my presentation session, there was some data I felt was less relevent. So I left it out. Later I realized that except a couple tiny silly AOL's, nearly everything I left out was negative stuff. Which if I had felt differently, I probably could have geared the presentation session to seeming quite different. It was not intentional, and I didn't know the target of course, but I'd be an idiot to pretend there is no psychology involved there.

So it's got me thinking about what is righteous and just. Now in my private viewing, it's nobody's business. If people want me to view for them (and seriously, I don't know why they would, I am no expert) they get what I give them. Learning to give them what is accurate is part of what I'm working on obviously. The raw session is mine. It's filled with process notes, spontaneous insights about people and situations nobody's business, and more. If they don't like taking what I give them, they don't need me viewing for them.

Of course, sometimes I just suck anyway, so they don't ask. I recall Tunde tasking me on something eons ago and I gave him a big session with a sketch focus on... well maybe it was a soccor ball, perfectly round with this hexa-something shape inside. I saw this guy with white all over his face, and had the mass-crowds-hysteria data already, and AOL'd bigtime on the 9/11 thing, esp. as I felt Tunde had a tendency to task terror targets at that time (tasker aol, sigh!), and made the session into some catastrophic event, when really it was a soccer (football) game (World Cup). This probably explains why he doesn't ask me for sessions anymore LOL. Anyway, where was I? I'm so ADD-like today it's ridiculous...

OK, but in public viewing -- such as with TKR -- what's fair and "just" for data? I gave the tasker a scan of my raw session. I uploaded the presentation session for everybody else (see TKR at the Dojo Psi, the Galleries, Missions page). And a bit later I went ahead and posted both over on PJRV for reference from my Red Cairo blog. So it's not private anymore. But it's got me thinking on this.

Should I be required to share raw data with "the public" if the forum in which I'm doing the viewing is "public"? Is that like an implicit part of the unspoken social agreement of viewers viewing together? Is it rude or overly secretive of me to keep my raw data private? (Not that this scan was much of an example. I couldn't find my lab book, was 3/4 asleep, and had to use some tiny journal-like book instead, in the near-dark. The only thing amazing about the session is that I could even read it to retype it the next day.)

I think I will be an autocrat and do what I want, how I want, when I want, anyway. But I posted a thread on the TKR RV webForum Board about this, just to see what other viewers think about it.

If you share all your data and it makes someone paranoid about something with zero evidence, is that a bad thing? I mean if it's bad to scare people for money as is done in RVland regularly by at least one source, is it just less-bad to scare them when it isn't for money? Is it less-bad to scare them about one topic rather than another? Where is the dividing line of what is "the right thing to do"?

I know... I'm neurotic. I'm a Virgo x4, gimme a break.

Targets as Sensei

2008-03-06T17:52:00.000-08:00

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 29 June 2006

It's just too mushy to believe. And so . . . metaphysical! I apologize in advance for any hard-headed, no-nonsense viewers this post sends screaming into the night.

An interesting thing happened during Emotional Sequencing (pre-session intro) last night. And in the session that followed, I had an interesting experience that was difficult to articulate. No wonder. It is not normal to experience "being" a tornado, as a very unique creature. One can do little but personalize it in human terms! The session was imperfect (though had good data too) but that was my inability to translate, articulate, communicate. On feedback, I understood. My target contact rocked.

I suspect the pre-session insight and session as 'confirmation' may change a lot about my viewing. I feel that in my genuinely good-intentioned quest of self and universe to find some answers, I may have actually found something that has meaning to me.

I was intending to go through the common emotions for E.S. and it just... worked way better than expected. Along the way of feeling wonder-anticipation about the session, and determination, and humor, I had another new feeling appear inside me spontaneously, evolve into a whole new perspective, and it just ... carried me away!

The feeling up first was respect. This "bloomed" like an inner flower into a full acknowledgement of the target. Our own thoughtform definition as far as "inclusion and exclusion" goes, yet still its OWN thing of a sort. An identity of its own. Sort of. Not exactly self-aware, but aware.

Those feelings brought the understanding that a session explores a relationship between the viewer and the target. It then pulled in more of the respect, added a hefty dose of "fond appreciation," and a warmth spread from my chest as if my heart chakra were 'blooming', and suddenly I was perceiving the target as Sensei. Great respect for the honor of the relationship, for the opportunity to learn. The most astounding perception was this concept that it was agreeing to teach me. A mutual relationship.

Yet even as I marveled at this rather offbeat way of looking at it, a complete reversal of the normal me-as-centric, I realized that this is the most fundamental truth of a session: that I want to learn about it, of it, and from it. What makes me think that process would be all about me? And not equally about IT? The fact that "it" was something I'd been granting all the sentience of a postage stamp five minutes earlier did not escape me.

For years, I have had only two things I considered "givens" based on all my experiences over time. The rest is variable for me. These two things are not.
1. All things are composed of consciousness (which is energy which is inherently aware as a property which even when not self-aware is still awareness).
2. All things long for evolvement (via absorption of energy which is power which is like food which causes growth which is evolution).
These have been the core "understandings" I've held about reality for years. How could I have forgotten?
How could I have not applied this to Remote Viewing?

Here's a thought. What if when we miss a target, I mean really miss it---when we are literally "off target" (as opposed to misinterpreting or miscommunicating data from the target, which is different)---what if it's because the target at that moment does not choose to share itself with us? I'm reminded of the spoon-bending efforts, the feeling-for-permission activity, the shouting at it. We are trying to convince it? IT? Are we suggesting that a spoon has consciousness? If so, it'd seem a given that entire targets of information do. So what if it says "no"? Can we force it? Yes I believe we can, just like I can go dump chemicals on my plants/soil that will force bloom even if it is inappropriate timing for them. But maybe it takes extra effort and "Will" to succeed at the forcing when there is nothing "mutual" going on. Why make it harder than it needs to be? Isn't RV inconsistent enough without working against the universe?

Back in 1996-7 I had a dream where a target and I were having what felt rather like a dance. As I slowly awoke, a voice said to me, "It images itself for you." I put that on the front page of Firedocs RV because it struck me as so profound, and because at the time, it felt like the target and I had this relationship that I can only compare to lovers getting to know each other. As if I were a man and the target were a beautiful woman who deep down, really wanted to show herself, really wanted to be fully known, really wanted to be admired, really wanted to have the full uninhibited ability to interact with me without reservation and have me appreciate and delight in every part of her. Whether it's RV, dowsing or anything else, would it help to enlist the assistance of the others involved? That would be... the target, since that IS the other party involved, right? But we'd have to recognize the target as having some consciousness in order for this to happen. As long as we treat targets as if they're as unimportant and assumedly-dead as used chewing gum wrappers, we're unlikely to be granting them the kind of respect that would breed a good relationship and rapport.

Later when I thought about it, writing an email to a friend about this, I realized just how shallow the common perspective really is. The RV framework, in the process of getting rid of the religious and mystical garbage (and thank God for that, pun intended), seems to have gone to the other extreme. Maybe it is the element of having scientists and soldiers in a culture of consumers and corporatism, that set the "tone" for perspective and exploration, but it seems to me now, that our perspective is so... shallow and limited. Typical of the humans we are, with RV we act just like we do with anything else. Going in and taking what we want, with no regard to what is right for balance, no respect for our relationship with anything else--we cannot even recognize such relationships exist, because we don't grant sentience to anything else!

Information as a Natural Resource

We expect to know the target because we want to. We insist. Because it would be convenient and fun for us to have this power of insight. Because we want to harvest the information as a resource. Mostly, because we CAN. So... the same logic we used for everything from stealing land to polluting rivers we use with RV--- no matter how cosmic it might seem, no matter it's all about "consciousness," we don't seem to have any change of perspective for RV. We're human, we want it, so we take it, and we don't even think about the details. I am not saying we have been unkind to the universe via RV. I am just saying we are clueless and missing out as a result of the viewer-as- sole- participant- in-session perspective. The ignorance may affect our results. I suppose the reason this subject doesn't come up in the context of RV is because we do not for a moment expect that the target has anything to do with it. 'Cause it's all US, you know? Gosh, the universe revolves around humans, what else exists, let alone matters?

Amazing, really: you take the one niche group of people who ought to MOST respect the "consciousness of the universe" and they treat targets---whether people, animals, locations, events, or any combination of things---like "inanimate" objects. (Don't get me started on how inanimate objects are 'composed of consciousness' as well; they are not self-aware, that much is a given, but that doesn't mean they have no awareness that contributes to the mix of a given environment, or that contributes to the conglomerate of a target-identity. You can certainly share the awareness of an inanimate, I've done it. Spontaneously, never mind many times during RV.) We don't see a target as "a conglomerate of consciousness." As something we should respect, something we are interacting with, not just observing. One experienced viewer even told me that interacting with the target data was "incredibly dangerous" and should be avoided. Maybe so. But maybe being a genuine student of the universe means something more to me than RV on the surface does. The session that followed knocked my socks off. I am certain I could not have experienced that if I hadn't been willing to grant some degree of awareness to the target itself first.

So in the end, I had a question: what am I missing? How is my thinking limited or incorrect?
Love was the answer.
Maybe not the only answer, but one that I feel really opened my eyes... and heart.

Somehow, I think for a lot of people into viewing, this is just not going to be possible for them to get their brain around. I think it will sound too new age, too airy-fairy. I am usually the one saying viewers should not "project" their performance details onto taskers, analysts, and a variety of other things that we use as excuses in our field; that viewers should take total responsibility. But responsibility for my role, does not mean invalidating that anything else exists to mutually participate. Some people use the 'you create your own reality' concept to invalidate the universe around them as merely a projection; others use it to validate the universe around them as a delightfully creative canvas of self they get to interact with. I'm in the latter group, obviously. Most viewers have read that book "The Conscious Universe." Most viewers if questioned would be perfectly happy to say, that consciousness permeates our holographic universe, whatever. Yet I don't see or hear that armchair theory "rolling down into" perspective or theories or hands-on application or discussion.

What difference might it make in our physical world, if man began working with nature, with all things as deserving of respect, with the earth as a relationship?

What difference might it make in our psychic world, if we did the same thing?

"If you love it enough, anything will talk with you."
-- George Washington Carver