Talk About Gray Hair

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 27 March 2006

John Lilly was nowhere to be found. I didn't see any dolphins, either. I had not taken any drug. (Not like this has ever been required for me to have weird dreams and weirder conscious "anomalous" experiences, of course.) And despite my love of computers, the Solid State Entities were not telling me their plans for gradually taking over our reality. All in all, it was a normal night with fairly normal dreams.

Except it was this dream I've had more than once, back again lately in syndicated reruns. Oh brother. I never know if this means it's just some archetypal symbol recurring, something real still going on, something 'astral' I am interpreting in an analogy, or some run of the mill psychological garbage resulting from insufficient sleep and forgetting to feed the cat... or whatever.

In the dream, I am watching a person (just 'a' person) who seems like they are operating normally except somehow I 'know' that this is not how they would 'really' operate if they were not under the influence of someone. But I can't see any sign of anybody else. And they seem really oblivious to this influence.

I call that in-sanity, and when we're talking together we're in out-sanity. And you should never try to express all of your in-sanity in the out-sanity, or they'll lock you up. --John Lilly

Then there'll be this closeup, and I am looking at their scalp. In their hair are these little tiny gray hairs, except they are real short, just barely sticking out of the scalp, and they blend in with all the other hair and aren't noticeable. And something about them draws my attention and then I realize that they are not hairs, they are wires, they are just incredibly thin like a strong but soft hair.

That's all. Then I wake up. And of course when I do, I think of the autobiography of Dr. John Lilly, the famous scientist who according to his book, developed a rudimentary form of mind control using small wires implanted directly through the scalp into regions of the brain. This was many decades ago. The government was nuts about the idea and he was promptly excluded from meetings about his own research by military; he didn't have the 'clearance'.

He moved on to dolphins, as they have bigger brains (and don't have to sign consent waivers!). But in doing so he discovered/decided that dolphins were actually more intelligent than we are, just in a different way, and many other things. Here's an OMNI interview and a Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove interview with Dr. Lilly where he talks about the entities, the dolphins, "Vitamin K", multiple realities and some of the brain research.

When something occurs with me I don't understand, my coping mechanism is always to attempt to put it in a "framework" of a psychological case study. That way, everything can be "interesting" and it does not matter what something 'is', whether it is factual or hallucination or misinterpretation, what it means, etc. It's like an artistic foreign movie: you just watch it and, since you don't understand all of it, you simply accept whatever it seems to be, without making many assumptions.

So I'm asking myself, what would sponsor me having several dreams very specific to this? OK... I am 40... now and then, I get a gray hair. But these do not seem correlated with my noticing them so I don't really think that is related. Probably just some mild paranoia? neurosis? astral-suspicion? -- doing the hula through my nightly meanderings. But why. Sheesh.

It's Never Too Late for Another Heaven's Gate

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 26 March 2006

Well today, March 26, is the anniversary of the Heaven's Gate rapture... or whatever you call it when 39 somewhat screwed up people decide to kill themselves en masse.

Thanks to Dr. Courtney Brown, who apparently spent enough on the pedigree he couldn't afford to buy a clue, Remote Viewing will be forever-more associated with this curious event.

Special thanks to retired Major Ed Dames, of course, since only his special attention to his proteges seems to turn out people screwed up enough to go into the mass media and annihilate RV's reputation.

I notice that the hilarious website highersource.org was bought by someone who has an advertising site there now, and all the USENET-style flaming humor about Heaven's Gate is gone.

So as a memorial to a bunch of people who at least believed in something, to a radio show host who will believe anything, and to all the people who talk to aliens and wonder if they're still sane, I offer this blast from the past of some old HG humor.

---

Why did the members really commit suicide?

-- Because they were trying to keep up with the Joneses.

Why were the Heaven's Gate cultists carrying quarters when they died?

-- Because the UFO driver accepts only exact change.

Why were the 39 really pissed off?

-- Because when they got to the UFO, they found out that their suitcases had been sent to Mars.

Why did many of the cult members castrate themselves?

-- Because they misunderstood the job requirement: "Wanted: UNIX programmers."

---

Top 13 Reasons Why the 39 Programmers Committed Suicide

13. They were AOL subscribers.

12. Sure-fire way to avoid the Year 2000 Problem.

11. Don't worry -- they're just rebooting.

10. Actually, they downloaded their personalities into a virtual reality simulator. (Only required 2 KB!)

9. Had met too many "Rules Girls."

8. Alan Greenspan made an offhand comment questioning the "irrational exuberance" about Java.

7. It's the normal fallout from breaking up with a cyberslut.

6. They got a totally wicked flame-mail from Bill Gates.

5. They found out there was no real person named Dana Scully.

4. It wasn't suicide. It was the Ebola macro virus.

3. They realized that "Comet Hale-Bopp" is an anagram for "HTML be poop, Ace."

2. The aliens told them that in the 21st century no one uses the Web.

1. They were trying to spam God.

---

Why did the men of the cult agree to the suicide?

-- They didn't have the balls to object.

What do you put on the toes of dead Web designers?

-- </BODY> tags.

What did the owner of the million-dollar mansion shout when he heard of the mass suicide?

-- "The security deposit is mine, all mine!"

What did the cult members ask their companions while putting on the plastic bags?

-- "Does my Zip-Loc bag show a green seal?"

What's the temperature now in Rancho Santa Fe?

-- Minus 39.

What's the official Heaven's Gate jingle?

-- "Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't."

Did you see the new bumper sticker in Rancho Santa Fe?

-- So many stupid people -- So few comets!

---

Employment Opportunities in Rancho Santa Fe, California

Our web designing business has taken off like a comet! We now have 39 positions for team-playing computer programmers and web developers.

• We will provide a luxurious residence and transportation for all selected applicants


• Employees will live and interact with a friendly group of colleagues in a family-like environment


• The good of a project must be above any personal concerns or artistic egos


• Strict dress-code is required: black shirts and pants and black Nike sneakers


• Buzz haircut for men, women, and eunuchs


• We're looking for people interested in astronomy and the occult


• Extensive, long-term travel is mandatory


• Experience in vodka cocktail mixing and/or chemistry is a plus!

Note: Do not apply after comet Hale-Bopp leaves near-Earth orbit.

---

The Sky's the Limit!

Due to a sudden and unexpected shortage of qualified programmers and web designers, this upwardly-mobile southern California web page development firm is looking for highly motivated employees. We want you on our team if you are:

• Despondent, fanatical, and easily manipulated


• Inter-galactically minded


• Like long hours of work


• Prefer celibacy over sex


• Have one testicle or less


• Some Java experience preferred


• Salary irrelevant

Our Benefits Package includes:

• Free housing on our beautiful, freshly renovated, smoke-free El Rancho campus


• Free uniforms, Nike sneakers and haircuts


• Free on-site spiritual counseling (mandatory)


• Free subscription to "Alien Abductions Illustrated" plus an all-expenses-paid trip to the annual Trek-o-Rama in sunny San Diego


• Free room-service meals, including our famous all-you-can-eat "Phenobarbital Pudding" and "Guyanese Apple Sauce," both made from our own secret recipe


• Free Group Afterlife Insurance

Please e-mail your résumé to Do@wacko.org

---

Limericks

by Ben Radford



The stupid cult Heaven's Gate

Was run by a fruity bald-pate.

    Although all very nice

    They mixed UFOs and Christ

And wanted a similar fate.



There was a cult in San Diego

That believed every UFO fable.

    When Hale-Bopp came,

    They all went insane,

And now lie on a coroner's table.

---

Signs Your Webmaster Is in a Cult

• Every link seems to take you to www.amway.com.


• Repetition of same banner ads: Stoli, Mott's... Stoli, Mott's...


• He brings twenty-three wives to the office holiday party.


• Instead of counting up visitors, your site counts down days to the apocalypse.


• Suddenly your travel agency's site is featuring inter-planetary excursions for comet watching and one-way tickets to Guyana.


• His home page says: "Best viewed from the Mothership."


• Your website's "Hall of Fame" inductees required to do stint handing out flowers at airport.


• Your website is honored as the David Koresh Fan Club's "Site of the Day."


• He or she has 38 roommates, yet is oddly stress-free.


• Insists that Sabbath actually begins when "The X-Files" ends.


• Frequently mutters about the "Prophet Steve Jobs" returning to rescue the true believers.


• Not only does he understand UNIX, he *is* one.


• The big "N" on your browser replaced by spinning head of Charles Manson.


• He only answers to the name, "Do-bert."


• Ugly clothes; insufficient diet; lack of sleep; goofy haircut; lives in a mansion; has many followers... Hey, wait a minute! That's Bill Gates!

Medium

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 19 March 2006

Yeah I know. I'm way behind the times. But after I finished with VR.5 on Saturday, then on Sunday I watched the whole first season of The Medium on DVD. I admit I was skeptical about this being worth watching. Generally psychic stuff as portrayed on the screen is just ridiculous. I was pleasantly surprised.

The part I liked least about the show was that the first 4-6 episodes had way too much crime-gore. I don't mind violence and gore in context, but there's a line where it is over-showed too often, too long, and it's clear it's nothing more than sick titillation. Apparently feedback must have come in though because after those it calmed way down into being a reasonable amount to work with the plot, and from then on was mostly fine, excepting a few episode moments here and there.

The part I liked most about the show was that it's obvious someone who's genuinely psychic is consulting for it. They made a conscious effort to make clear certain issues that psychics of any kind constantly face. For example, that some info is there and some just isn't, and who the hell knows why. The psychic might be able to sometimes tell you everything from the time to a person's name, describe them perfectly and find you the body, but have no idea that a sudden storm will wipe out the whole project. They may be deeply informed about other people in ways they wish they weren't, while being oblivious to the point of near idiocy about what is going on in their personal life. They may get info that might be accurate but hasn't even happened yet and there's no telling if something between then and now will cause it to not happen at all; would that make them wrong at the time, or only wrong later?

The one thing they try hard to convey, but the parameters of the show itself actually cause the opposite example for, is the inconsistency and the lack of closure. They do try and come back to this again and again in many ways, which is great. But even as someone watching the show, I "need" for her dreams to have some meaning that gets figured out and at least mostly resolved; I "need" for it to make sense. Even if she interprets something wrongly on the show, it's still clear that her info was not wrong, only her conclusion. Yet the reality is that even though she says this on the show, the show cannot demonstrate that so much of the psychic info has no traceable meaning for closure -- or is even certain to be psychic vs. something else. The quantity of psi that is inaccurate, that is inexplicable, that has NO sense of 'certainty', and that certainly doesn't include detailed numbers, names, etc., is a big deal, and they can mention it on the show repeatedly--but they can't show it. The show itself in order to have a plot worth watching, requires amazingly detailed data, requires that whatever dream being focused on means something, requires that she gets some degree of feedback or closure on at least most of it.

It's a dilemma because this is the crux of why psi is such a problem to study in the lab, why it's so profoundly psychologically difficult to deal with for the people who experience a lot of it (let alone near constantly and on purpose as part of a job, as the woman in the show does), and part of why it's so difficult to get accepted by society: because it is just damned inconsistent in quality, quantity, detail and value. Consistency in psi is the holy grail of RV and every other organized psychic art. On the show they attempt to example this, like things which won't be known until the future, if ever; they have the psychic often explaining that most dreams "don't mean anything" (I dispute that but I'd agree they aren't necessarily psychic regarding consensus reality events!); they show the psychic's issues with the tendency to take literally or at face value what she doesn't know (on the show, her husband, a scientist, is the voice of reason and doubt).

In a way, the show is an ideal situation: an extremely logical but open minded husband is the counterbalance for the intelligent yet wildly psychic wife; ten years of marriage anchor them. The family/kids element gives a break to the dark crime element of the show, while also being an opportunity to explore now and then the issues that psi in children can bring up. If you took away that grounding stable long-term husband, and you took away the high intellect of the psychic herself (she was in law school initially); and you just had a wildly psychic person of average intelligence who either has nobody around them for balance or worse, has some newAgerbil irrational sorts to just make it worse, you'd have the situation that most psychics in our culture actually have.

One reason I was so immediately drawn to RV was the 'logical' aspect to it -- of doing it on purpose, of focusing on feedback and comparative accuracy, of trying to find something rational in a decidedly non-rational experience which I'd had far too much of spontaneously, and a lot of issues with trying to 'stay sane' and keep track of what was real and my identity etc. But the reality is that psi is just psi, whether in or out of RV protocol, whether in a session or in a dream or a vision (or a vision during session, as I sometimes have), is still going to have many of the same issues: you just don't know, until feedback of whatever kind eventually comes, what all is psychic at all, accurate, symbolic, allegorical, etc.

I do have to say though that at least the season I watched, aside from the astonishingly good data (some would say impossibly good; I'd say not impossibly, just highly unlikely to be that good consistently), and of course the forced consistency and closure the plot itself requires for the show to succeed, that they've done a very good job with it. Far better than I expected. I liked the show quite a bit.

Vallee has a website!

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 14 March 2006

Hey, Dr. Jacques Vallee has a website now. He's my favorite UFOlogy-related researcher, which I grant may be more because coincidentally we agree in so many areas than because of his profound wisdom or my excellent taste. Still he is the kind of mind I desperately wish more people in UFOlogy (or remote viewing!) actually had. Thanks go to Tunde who posted this old interview at TKR that led me to it. www.jacquesvallee.net

In the modern world, I think Vallee may be the only guy I feel like a genuine "fan" of. It's embarrassing, really, since that's a layer of separation from anybody, and I am normally not the fan type (is there such a personality?). I don't know him and I respect him greatly. Perhaps it's in part because after my "anomalous personal experiences," some of which I recounted in the case study Bewilderness, I was working overtime for hanging on to my own sanity, working through my own theories regarding so-called alien and entity experiences, and he was like finally stumbling on water in the desert just after you'd given up. I knew what it looked like... I'd spec'd out some of it myself... but he was finally, thank someone if not God, the real deal: a researcher who was genuinely interested yet had no personal paradigm pushing an 'angle'.

I didn't read anything about alien-related stuff during my experiences, initially because I thought all that stuff was nuts and I thought my own experiences were just some really bizarre psychology that I found interesting, if scary, but hoped would pass. I was more inclined to think I had weird dreams and hallucinations and multiple personality disorder, than that I'd been 'abducted' (a word which carries a lot of baggage, and I don't think it's always appropriate). Later I was afraid to influence myself, since self-validation was the most complicated area of my psychology to deal with. When I finally gave in and started reading, just once in awhile, I wished that I had read his stuff sooner.

I recommend anybody interested in the subject check out his books, he has many, search on his name at Amazon. He also has an autobiographical book called Heart of the Internet, about his history with the computer science field, which is very interesting, to me as much for its view on the cultism surround "est" as for the computer angle (since a lot of the same cultism is prevalent in Scientology and Remote Viewing, and yes I apologize for using those terms in the same sentence).

Sea Monster: Giant Squid

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 13 March 2006

This week's TKR Mission was that fabulous GIANT SQUID the Japanese researchers found. That thing is amazing.

Check out the sessions in the RV Galleries > Missions at TKR: http://www.dojopsi.com/tkr/

I viewed on this one. I don't do very many of them, mostly because between time demands and often having to be in the backend to work on stuff, either I don't get to it or I see the target so then I can't view on it. When I start viewing more regularly, I move at least a little past the chronic aol-drive phase. But when I only view once in awhile, damn I sure suffer it more than usual, and often have to try and surgically extract the data in reverse. Although annoying, I consider this as much a good exercise as anything, since sometimes that's going to happen, so learning to compensate is useful. Still. It IS annoying.

As a result I have taken to -- in humor -- nicknaming my sessions by the hilarious combination of AOLs that they contain. It doesn't matter if the session is totally accurate data or lousy, they still get the humor handle of their dominant overlays. This week's session I call the Martian Blood Vessel session.

I had time to do a summary self-evaluation (that is psi too, it is just kind of like a second session done on the first session), so as usual that ends up better (more succinct/larger % accurate or at least not-inaccurate) than the long gory detail.

I've been experimenting lately. Along with Aspects and Archetypes, I have thought it would be interesting to do sessions with a focus 'through' a given chakra, or body area. I figured if I did it occasionally, over time, I could go back later and see if some areas were more or less accurate, had certain 'types' of data vs. other types, brought data 'through' in a diff way, etc. I figure this might actually be an accidental insight into how I relate to myself as well.

LASIK!

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 12 March 2006

"I was blind, but now I can seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"

Actually, I was petrified. I don't care how 'routine' it is or how many people are doing it. The idea of a laser CUTTING INTO YOUR EYES ought to frighten anybody. Yeah, yeah, I acted cool, casual -- up until the operating room, when I clammed up and got very still, which is my response to trauma -- but I admit, I was pretty scared about it going in.

The first "hard pressure" experience is only a few seconds. Still it is a bit scary and uncomfortable. (Of course, you used to have to get abducted by aliens for eye care like this, and that can be scary and uncomfortable too.) You can 'see' them opening and closing the flap over your cornea. And there is a longer period, where the adjustments are happening, where you are staring at nothing but see a kaleidascope of the tiniest imaginable pinprick colors, which I figured were the lasers configuring the various parts of the cornea. My correction was pretty severe, so the memorable smell of my fission'd corneal material wafting past my nose was highly present. That's something likely to show up in a bad dream someday.

They give you a mild sedative first. I was quiet and still in sheer terror though, never mind the drug, which did nothing but reduce me to feeling as sleepy as I do half my waking life from chronic sleep deprivation anyway. When it was over and they walked me into the typical eye exam room, and I sat down on the chair, the women were convinced I was going to pass out for some reason. I think because they wanted me to be talkative and I had a difficult time even forcing myself to say "I'm fine." I felt traumatized and that makes me clam up. They were trying to convince me to lie down on the floor. I was ignoring them stonily, wondering why on earth they thought this would be a good idea. I finally managed to convince them I really was fine, as I'd said initially, and they left me alone to sit with eyes closed and wait for the doctor.

Friday morning I had it done. Afterwards, you are supposed to wear these goggles they provide to protect your eyes, when you are inside, and these wrap around sunglasses when you are outside. Yesterday morning (Saturday) I went for a quick checkup. My eyes tested at 20/15 in both, which is perfect vision. (20/20 is actually slightly less than perfect, in case y'all haven't heard the story of the guy who invented that using his slightly-imperfect assistant as his guide.) I went to the park and watched, with the clear goggles on but still, with my new eyes!, the birds and squirrels.

The day of the surgery I mostly slept all day or just sat there with my eyes closed. I've worried something could go wrong. Until about a month out, when one is allegedly fully healed, it's not really 'over' -- and of course the closer to the surgery (particularly within a week) the bigger the risk. My left eye isn't healing as fast and is slightly swollen and bugs me now and then. Doc says it's pretty normal and as long as I keep taking the antibiotic drops and keep the eyes lubricated with these tears, it should be fine. Being the neurotic Virgo I am, I still worry like hell about this. I woke up last night and it hurt like crazy. Before that it had once itched like crazy -- having your actual eyeball itch is a very novel experience.

I reduced the brightness and contrast of my monitor and spent nearly all day yesterday on TKR computer stuff, which made me kinda mad, because I didn't really want to but it was pain in the butt social politics stuff I felt I had to deal with before it got worse, and it actually required as part of it scripting some pages and writing up some policies and correspondence. I never did finish the solo-session page that is so overdue... later today I hope. Meanwhile, I really want to rest my eyes so I am going back to bed. Maybe I can meditate, or view for the Mission for this week. I'm getting used to the goggles, but I'll be glad when I can ditch them.

I've been hoping, before and after my LASIK eye improvement, to see this as a metaphysical allegory: that I am improving my ability to SEE, to be more aware, on many levels, not just my physical eyes. It could happen! ;-)

The Point of Control

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 08 March 2006

This category should be subtitled "Incredibly long boring essays about RV." Don't say you weren't warned.

Someone asked me recently:

The funny thing I noticed is that all of the tasks for the galleries state "describe the focus of the photograph". So technically, if we are doing what we are supposed to be doing, and tasking really is as important as is generally regarded, then using the galleries should technically only make you really good at describing the focus of photographs. In other words, when you say that I should be getting more concepts and emotional information, wouldn't those things be peripheral to the direct task? Is it possible that I only described the appearance of the castle because that was the task? Maybe the tasking is only allowing me one dimension of information. Just an idea, I am curious about whether the viewer shapes the experience or the tasker.

Since I promised myself that I would sometimes answer email via blog in order to (a) get some email answered and (b) keep the blog alive, I'll start with this.

The funny thing I noticed is that all of the tasks for the galleries state "describe the focus of the photograph".

Just for the record for others, "nearly" all the "practice" tasks do. With practice however, unless you're doing it differently for some reason, usually the tasking is considered a bit "self-tasked from after-session based on feedback". What the tasker (who is the viewer in that case) considers "part of" the target and "important or relevent" to the target, is really up to them. Other kinds of tasks (the Missions, and some of the advanced tasks) may have different instructions (given viewer) or directive (tasker 'intent' as recorded). However, it is a common thing that the focus of a photograph defines the "parameters" of what is included in the tasking.

should technically only make you really good at describing the focus of photographs.

The point of practice is to learn to aim as specifically as possible. The 'given assumption' of the target creator is that anything involved at the place/time the photo was taken, is part of the target. If there is a picture of a boat at a dock and you hear engines and seagulls, smell fresh air and feel a rocking motion, all of that is considered to be a valid part of the target; it is "implied" by feedback. Obviously a camera only gets visuals. A videocamera would also get motion and sound. You'd have to visit the site yourself to get smell or feel. But viewers get all of these things in session, even on sessions that are based on photo feedback. The 'focus of the photo at the time the photo was taken' is definining a space/time coordinate and everything within those -- including motion, emotion, concept, and more.

concepts and emotional information, wouldn't those things be peripheral to the direct task? Is it possible that I only described the appearance of the target because that was the task?

I would say, you describe it because you think that was the task. A tendency to highly visual data also suggests you are highly visual. That may seem obvious, but it matters because you're the tasker. In practice where the parameter is set by feedback, the viewer is the person doing the evaluation. If the viewer sees as feedback a photo of a woman crying next a hurricane-ravaged home, and they think, "Biological. Manmade. Mess." then their "self-tasking" is going to be different than a viewer who thinks to themselves that the most important aspect of the target is, "An event, destruction," or, that the important aspect is, "a woman, feeling terrible grief." Those can be three different taskings! Or one. Or.... well, it's up to the tasker.

The point of viewing (objectively) is to get what is most important about or relevent to the target. The point of practice with specific feedback is to get as good at that "fine tuning of focus" (narrowing the aperture from 'the universe' to the parameters of the tasking) as possible. In the case of practice, it's at least in part determined by what the viewer actually thinks of the target. This is why I suggest that viewers, upon feedback, sit down calmly and really study it. Feel with it, merge with it to whatever degree; go through your session and work to re-experience it and understand why each thing that came through did, or what it might mean.

Tasking Matters.

Remote Viewing has several key issues where something "can" matter and "does" matter -- but does not "have" to matter.

For example, the idea that "tasking matters" is like saying that when are driving, visibility matters. Absolutely! It can matter, it does matter, it can effect results -- but, that doesn't mean that we expect every driver who encounters a little fog or rain or other "lessened or impaired visibility" to drive off the road. What we hope is that they have sufficient driving skill that they can drive at night, in fog, in rain, in snow, and not kill themselves or anybody else. Obviously, if they are on a good wide road with tilted curves on a clear day, they can really rock a racecar! That's an ideal condition. But anybody expert at racecar driving under those perfect conditions is also expected to be at least decent at driving a subaru at night in the snow on a back road in Connecticut if needed. "It was night" is not an excuse for poor results. It is simply a statement of fact. People can excel under even poor conditions. The percentage of likelihood they will do so is probably less compared to an ideal situation. That doesn't mean it is zero.

This is why no matter how fabulous an ice skater may be at jumps, they have to "do the 8's" and qualify for the competition. It's not enough to be a great jumper under perfect conditions. Basic skill across the board is considered a fundamental. After that, a specialty in some area is great. People who claim to be expert jumpers but can't seem to get around to doing the 8's aren't taken seriously... for good reason.

Some will say that you should be able to sufficiently describe a computer-tasked, computer-generated photograph-feedback decently if you're a good viewer. I agree with that. You're basically tasking yourself after the fact on that one, since you evaluate it compared to feedback. And, despite the ability of some viewers to profoundly believe in linear time---something which I think the experience of remote viewing obliterates, and I just don't know how they missed this effect---I don't believe that tasking needs to come first. Just view for awhile by describing the target that WILL be tasked to you. It might be iffy at first. Stick with it and you will see: it just doesn't matter.

Some follow on that no-tasker logic by extending it into territory where it doesn't belong, by saying that this (viewing computer-selected targets) is so "....because tasking doesn't matter." Well, that's getting carried away. Of course tasking matters. But just because it matters doesn't mean it should make a viewer incompetent under any other condition. Like the driving analogy above, what it most means is that if you WANT ideal viewing conditions, you will arrange them.

Are ideal conditions good?

Sure!

Is this good for the viewer?

It is good for helping a viewer learn to view under ideal conditions.

Is that fairly limited scope good for the viewer?

That's up to the viewer to decide. I think learning to ski under perfect conditions is ideal, but I wouldn't send anybody off to a serious mountain who didn't have experience and competence under a variety of conditions.

Some people think that only viewing under perfect conditions, with tasker and monitor and a 3 hour session twice a week, is worth doing. Maybe it is for them. It's their viewing, it's their life. If they have a tasker, a monitor, and three hours twice a week, and if that fulfills everything they want to do, then heck yeah, go for it! Others think that they should be able to view while waiting in line, or when they only have 6 minutes while in a rushing helicopter. If that's their parameter for performance, that's their choice. There's no good or bad to it. In the end, what matters is the viewer's development based on their own reasons for viewing. If what you're doing is working for you, great. If it isn't, do something else.

Maybe the tasking is only allowing me one dimension of information.

Whether the tasking allows something is a completely different story. Allows?? Flesh that out a little. Are you suggesting the words on the screen limited you? Are you suggesting the psychic intent of the tasker limited you? If so, you'd have to be assuming the tasker was (a) someone other than you, and (b) specifically excluded all information except the visual.

There is a difference between a viewer choosing to align their intent with the tasker's, vs. the viewer being controlled by the tasker. The latter implies a level of psychic subservience that reminds me of some of Ingo Swann's essays about this. (Somewhere I have one on that topic, I will see if I can dig it up.) I do believe that a person can "hand over their autonomy" to others if they choose. From subtle marketing to cult indoctrination, people do it all the time -- consciously, subconsciously, and psychically. I believe it's important for viewers to have the strength to be autonomous, self-determined, even boneheadedly stubborn and independent when necessary. But, that's just my opinion.

In most situations done in a good protocol, it is critical that the viewer's session be specifically geared to the 'tasker's intent'. But a good quantity of tasking provided viewers, particularly by those who are not experienced viewers themselves or in 'social' viewing, is lousy tasking. If a viewer cannot psychically and psychologically "bring the point of control into themselves" for this process, they will be subject to every smallest screwup a tasker can make, and the list is infinite. Is the tasker's intent what they wrote down as their intent? Or have they subconcious (or conscious) intentions aside from what is 'on paper'? "Which" intent is the viewer viewing? What if the intents conscious vs. subconscious vs. written are contradictory in some fashion? How much detail does the intent include? If the target is the town square at 9pm next Tuesday, does the tasker really want to know the environment there at that time? Would they be interested to know that at 9:17pm a bomb goes off? Interested, or actually looking for something like that? If the latter, are they even tasking that correctly?

(Target definition is an art as well as a science, and I personally suspect that we could trace more of remote viewing to that subject than to anything else outside of the viewer's psychology.)

For any viewing which feedback is eventually available (and eventually may mean '25 years'), it may very well be up to viewer to determine what was most appropriate data for the occasion. The viewer makes that decision assumedly psychically, although they consciously evaluate what they can (the conscious part is after the fact, though). In an idealized world, the viewer makes it in psychic tandem with the tasker and both are in tandem with the purpose and outcome of the viewing. It is not always an idealized world though.

At some point, when the tasking is unknown (e.g., the viewer has no directions but is only told 'describe the target' or given numbers or what have you), it is going to come down to who is to be master of the decision. About the task, the details, the 'truth'. The tasker, or the viewer? What if there is no tasker? What if the tasker is wrong, has conflicting intentions, etc.? Do you train a viewer to rely utterly on the tasker, and devote most of your time to training taskers not to screw up? Or do you train a viewer to rely on psi, and devote most of your time to training viewers how to remote view "what matters"?

I am curious about whether the viewer shapes the experience or the tasker.

Who makes that decision? Who can make it, except the viewer?

The reality of psi is that you do astoundingly well because you want to, you allow yourself to, you make it happen, and you more and more come to accept that it can and it WILL.

That is no different for describing a stone structure than a person's feelings or a temporal series of events.

Tasker Issues (#1,912)

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 07 March 2006

Unless a tasker is an investigator or scientist (and maybe even then), when it comes to "social viewing" (in groups), it helps if a tasker is also a serious viewer. As a viewer, a person understands and relates to the freedom that must be had, internally. The more someone views, the more laid back they tend to be about the results that other people have when tasked by them.

The less a tasker views, the more dangerous the 'control' position of tasker can be. Since avoidance of personal viewing and a desperate need for control often go hand in hand (for psychological reasons I won't get into here), people who really want to task but really don't view should probably be avoided.

Next thing you know they'll be wanting to "analyze" session data---as if most people really know anything at all about either (a) analysis, or (b) remote viewing data, let alone (c) the two combined. This usually comes down to "subjective evaluation" of data, which anybody can do... and which, outside of applications, the viewer should be doing for themselves. Any moron can tell that their data is accurate, wrong, or the various options between or unknown. But only the viewer knows how it felt inside, the way it 'came in' to them, how that feeling relates to feelings about other data, etc. Other viewers can helpfully point out things they see in a session (such as is done in TKR's Remote Viewing Galleries), but the point of evaluation is in the hands of the viewer.

The less specific the tasking and the less clear the feedback (a common combination in social viewing), the more people seem to think analysis is necessary. I don't argue that it is more or less necessary; I argue that it has a point at all in that case. If you can't be specific in your tasking, you don't want a remote viewing session, you want a big glob of data you can sift through for what you think matches or is probably so. You might as well let the analyst write the result they want and save the viewer time.

Now, if you're just curious and you're tasking/viewing for fun, then sure, you can size/shape/arrange taskings in whatever way makes your heart happy. But in that case, I wouldn't expect anybody to be "critically evaluating" much of anything.

In social viewing (by that I mean, viewing which is not specific to applications and is shared among people), ideas about analysis inevitably lead to someone in an armchair deciding what they think is good vs. not. In my view this is little more than a game for the person in the armchair. If the tasking and feedback are clear, the viewer themselves can do that just fine. If they are not, nobody is fit to do it. And if anybody was, it would be the viewer, with tasking context, not anybody else.

Nothing is more exasperating than watching someone assign a tasking the width of a horizon, with feedback that barely exists if at all on the focus, and then they want to decide what viewers did good vs. poorly and where. In a social sense this almost inevitably, eventually, will lead to some other factor starting to take the lead for determining who-is-most-ok, such as shared belief systems or methodologies. Eventually you have cliques that aren't clicking, unless your viewers are all submissives. Which the best viewers usually quite pointedly are not.

The Tasker-Bear

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 07 March 2006

You never know what a control freak someone is until they start tasking remote viewing. Give a tasking role to the most gentle, good humored, laid back person you know and watch the morphic mutation begin. (Bring popcorn.)

A task is not just words about a target. It is a creative composition. Every tasker has hope for sessions done on their task. A tasking is like a painting, or a song. Even if the tasker dislikes it, don't you dare insult it. It's part of them.

And of course... whatever you do, for godssakes, don't mess up their feedback loop. Nothing will set off a tasker faster than someone else "interfering" with the intent-tasking-session-feedback cycle by interjecting additional feedback, opinions on the tasking, or whatever. It doesn't matter if your tasker has the gentle nature of Ghandi. They will morph into some science-fiction-themed Wrath of the Venusian Polar Bears monster if you screw with their viewers' cycle.

Trust me on this.

NSA and the Big RV Closet

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 05 March 2006

Oh yeah, we all know the government is supersecretly doing RV. We just can't believe that big a group of people could be ignorant and uninterested. It could be lurking in every closet big enough for two people. In every project funded well enough for a good recliner. We'll catch NSA and their Big RV Closet, just you wait.

For those who don't want to wait, Remote Viewing comes up now and then in tabloid-style stories. These are usually not as well written as the tabloids at the store, and not as interesting either, but given there isn't much media coverage of RV, we take what we can get.

The latest (thanks and hat tip to daz for this) comes from the Wayne Madsen Report, a leftist political website, for their Feb26 story about Remote Viewing.

The first part is a story I'd heard before (many times); it's no secret RV was used, or that the Carter administration found a downed plane thanks to a psychic. The rest of it is the alleged news tidbit. To apply just a TAD bit of critical thinking here:

However, according to NSA sources, remote viewing remains an ultra secret project at the signals intelligence agency.

"Sources!" Well there's a word that covers any imaginable thing with no evidence whatsoever. The tabloids have 'sources' too, heh! Maybe it gets better.

According to those familiar with the program, the protocols followed have actually complied with U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (USSID 18), which implements the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

True, I think... this is a trivia point anybody familiar with the old program could have mentioned. So? Putting it here is a ploy to make it sound like Ooooh Aaaaah, boy that's really advanced, important stuff... sounds great. Has zero bearing on whether what is being claimed is true, though.

U.S. persons have been protected by the use of mandatory "two person control" (a viewer and a special handler) during remote viewing sessions,

Ha! That's my favorite line. Protected from what? Sunburn? Aliens? Overtaxation?

carried out in a super secure chamber at NSA Headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland.

For which we have, oh yeah, zero evidence, not even a convincing rumor. Couldn't they make it convincing at least??

With recent disclosures about NSA's violations of FISA by order of the Bush White House,

....I just knew politics were going to get in there SOMEhow...

there are concerns that NSA's remote viewing program no longer complies with FISA or USSID 18.

This is the most common (and deft) written ploy: now we moved all the way to the "assumption" about NSA's current remote viewing program; we're no longer discussing it as alleged or a possibility -- we're referring to it as a total given indirectly. A lovely verbal seguey. Sheesh.

It's not that it can't be so -- hell, I hope someone with a brain is using psi on behalf of my country! But the above article sounds like it was written for almost no other reason than to find something that MIGHT imply that Bush MIGHT be related to something which MIGHT be doing something wrong. Heh. Like we really need to stretch to find something to beat up on him about, right? Like there isn't an endless list of great ammo right at hand.

I wish someone would make up some really GOOD lies about remote viewing. It's kinda depressing how little interesting news there is about the topic.

Oliphant (via Dor)

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 25 February 2006

In case I'm an idiot, my aspects have taken to spelling or speaking themselves clearly and then waking me up instantly so I don't forget. This is convenient, since sometimes... I am an idiot.

Last night was interesting. Dor apparently has accepted the pendant as an anchor, as he showed up and participated in my thoughts off and on for a bit. There is a certain state of mind and skill-process that I can see I need to work on developing. By that I mean it isn't just HIS job to share insight, it's also my job to learn to allow it, too.

I was dreaming about something I'm very worried about in life. Unfortunately I can't remember what it was. Anyway, an identity that is both an archetype and part of me said to me very clearly, Everything is going to be ok. And then to make sure I was clear on who/what part of me was telling me this, he spelled out his name in light and underlined it slowly and strongly in my attention so I could not miss it. He signed it: Oliphant. At the time I perceived this, it seemed very clear that this was both a name and a role, both part of me and part of the universe. It also felt like something very archetypal and I related it to a sense of 'occult', in terms of, identities I have read about or encountered with reference to occult studies. And I woke up THAT INSTANT he was finished with underlining the last letter, so that I would remember his message and who gave it to me.

Now if only I could remember what the message related to, I am sure that would help, ha. I did a web search but unfortunately, so many PEOPLE have that as a last name (including at least one occult writer) that I was unable to come up with any reference to possible documented identity. It doesn't really matter (it is real to me), I was just curious about where I might have seen/heard the term before.

I sank back into sleep for about an hour, and then came to the surface again. The rest of this is my notes from my journal that I wrote off and on from 3 to 5 am.

Oliphant, I thought. Somewhere, I have heard that term. Occult, I think. I thought of Tarot. There is the Heirophant in Tarot, I mused. But this is Oliphant, it was like both a name and a role inside me. And suddenly I thought: Tarot reflects the universe, reality. We reflect these (also). The cards of Tarot can be thought of as roles that we are divided up into inside ourselves -- we are a chess set, we are Tarot -- we are astrology's signs as well -- it is like just ways of grouping our universe-of-self ("I am divided for Love's sake, for the chance of union") -- my four elementals of soul is one way; I once grokked how when merged, we four were the Tree of Life in 3-D, the universe as I know it, the 10 Sephiroth -- So "Oliphant" is a real name + title + 'role' inside me.

But my Aspect RV, this can be done with Tarot or Astrological symbols as well. This must be why Steinbrecher was so open to both in his archetype work.

I feel Dor! This is Dor. He is facilitating each of these insights.

Iapetus. That is a moon. It occurs to me that the heavens are their own Tarot; their own chess set. There is a reason they play so strongly in early man's lore. So ... Iapetus, which is a mystery of sorts (it has a profoundly artificial looking 'seam' around it) -- if this is my culture's name for a heavenly body, this is also a valid 'Aspect' inside me.

I see. More Dor insight.

This is why Shakespeare's work is so eternal. The roles of his characters -- Othello, and others -- are well defined archetypes. Because he unconsciously matched a quality range of aspect-elements to flesh these out, subconsciously we recognize them.

Humor: Dor thinks "The Astrology Diet" might sell. Reminds me of Lu's idea of "Cats Gone Wild" and making that as a calendar.

The patterns of the universe show its meaning. Patterns in this case are apparent size, space, relationships, orbits and cycles. // Every molecule is like a mini-universe. ("This one has a sun, one planet and three moons.") // That temperature gage that Gallileo invented -- spheres of liquid floating in liquid, which by their float level and relationship show the temperature. It's an abstract (not close) analogy of this concept. // DNA, I have correlated before with my four elementals of soul. Remember how the circle squared the 'four primary' energy/colors were the 'technology' that 'beamed me' into bilocation? DNA is a form of technology when perceived within that framework. It is a fully functioning machine. Our species is simply not using it except at very rudimentary levels.

When I say Ry is "my universe" it has analogy space to be literal. We have our own cycles and relationship. We have a certain orbit (which) those cycles, if we tracked them, would make clear -- when we are closer or farther away from each other, when one seems to block the sun from another, when the proximity of a certain cyclical pattern point causes turbulence in one or both. [While typing this out it occurs to me this is why astrology works. We are not calculating behavior from orbits. We are calculating orbits from orbits.]

Planet X in history is like a lover that shakes up earth and then moves out of her life. This is a powerful archetype for humans to work with, moreso as it gets closer.

The inorganics love TV. They encourage us toward it. You know how in the movie The Matrix, humans were energy batteries, as long as their minds were occupied? Well, we are psychic-emotional batteries with TV! We are motionless, mostly expressionless, with all that energy generated inside us -- with nowhere to go. We easily succumb, then, to the lure of inorganics via daydreams or dreams, where we expend that energy just like a person spends money at a store. It becomes a feeding cycle if allowed.

(Thanks Dor.)

When God Leaves His Callback Number

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 24 February 2006

Recently I was thinking about my transition from Religious to Anti-Religious to Agnostic to Metaphysical to Occult to Areligious to, these days, either oblivious or intensely spiritual, depending on the day. From the age of 15 to my current 40, about the only thing I can say has been consistent with me is that I am sincere.

I could not be more cynical about 'organized' religion and what amounts to governance and control, and yet, at this point in my life I have more respect for what churches have and can do than I ever have.

I could not be less in line with any organized theologisophilosomethingish if I tried, and yet, my "relationship" with ... identities that I consider to be spiritual beings (or at the very least, something different than myself), is more powerful than ever. And with the idea that we all have a purpose, that nobody is born or dies by accident, etc.

I am not and have never been Catholic. Yet I have so much Catholic imagery in some of my experiences I wonder if that's all become an archetype. And then ironically, I am connected with two 'religions', one gnostic-catholic and one a metaphysically-catholic. Who knew there were so many options. ;-)

I once I wrote about a dream I had involving a group of nuns. If I have a parallel life, one is probably killing people as a soldier and the other is probably a nun. It would figure, and would explain a lot I suppose...

But I dream things like that. And now and then I just fall into the feeling of (Archangel) Michael. I feel that for whatever reason, I am aligned with him, and with Mary, whom neither the church nor history truly controls or has an inkling into the power of.

Some days I don't think about it even once. Some days I feel "filled with the spirit" and "in the center." Those days, synchronicity and 'awareness' are much higher; maybe those things cause that feeling, who knows. I have to wonder about Michael looking like a shimmering multicolor orb of light in a vaguely human form but with some 'lack of distinct' near the feet; all that red-orange-gold-yellow schema (not to be stupid, but I'd have expected blue); this in an RV session I desperately wished I'd continued longer... not bad for 2 minutes in a parking lot (sigh).

Why does it call me and not others?

I still have what I call 'occult' dreams. I dream about the Order (O.T.O.) or something analogous to that at least, rituals and some very weirdish things that, once awake, I can pretty clearly see the symbolism in. I wonder why I still dream about that, as if my "development continues on," even though consciously I have nothing to do with that anymore.

I dream about my future, my destiny, a 'role' of sorts that I resist like crazy. Nothing important, mind you, just that I am more comfortable in my armchair. I dream about things that tie into a "christ" realization, I am not talking about Jesus here but about a certain state of consciousness. I still don't really understand how I can get both Christian stuff and Occult stuff and Catholic stuff -- and even sometimes alien stuff -- and it's all in the same darn world. Jungian Stew, as I call it.

When I was a Christian I prayed fiercely to better understand the truth of Jesus, and ended up believing he'd been a good man but most the stories were myth, since that is what years of prayer led to. Yet, once I was totally NOT religious, I MET "Jesus" for real, in spirit, and was overwhelmed, and totally understood the bawling-stunned-starry-eyed response that people have to being genuinely, not just for the church but in spirit, "Born Again."

Maybe He is a thought-form; I just don't know. It is all sort of confusing to be honest.

I was listening to oldies, John Denver, the other day and he was singing,

He was born in the summer of his 27th year
Coming home to a place he'd never been before
He left yesterday behind him, you might say he was born again
You might say he found a key to every door

-- from Rocky Mountain High

That line 'coming home...' always gets me in that song. I wonder if there is a place, a mate, a destiny, for each person, or if it's really just whatever you make of life in some unspiritual, unimportant random odds kind of thing. If we create our reality in part or wholly, does believing in destiny create it?

I think I am going to start reading the i Ching again at night. Like the bible, moreso in many ways, it has a certain 'grounding-mellowing' effect. As if whatever you read, then your subconscious is working on it from then on, without your attention.

How remote viewing ties into all of this, I surely don't know, except that 'being aware' is IMO usually a good thing.

Psi is a whole new take on things. Kinda like when God leaves a callback number I guess.