Thursday, March 06, 2008

I AM a "Universal Translator"

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.