Palyne

I’ve been working on making my life just a little bit more normal. I don’t mean “no longer a flaming weirdo” normal — how could that possibly happen? — I mean “allows more than 3 hours of sleep a night, doesn’t work on something every waking instant, actually takes a little time for herself” kind of normal. I have managed this approximately two days in a row. This would be two days more than the last ten years or so, which means it must be a big deal to me.

As part of this, I instituted Martial Law in my household: also known as “lights-out bedtime”. 10pm for the kid (who turns 13 tomorrow), 11pm for me. Ideally I’m in bed at 10 too but meditating or something… but worst-case, I must be by 10:30pm. If something is not done that should be done — the story of my life! — it is just going to have to wait until morning.

So the night before last I decided to do an archetype meditation on my job, certain aspects of it. That went ok. Not real exciting though at the end I did get a small rush. What was more interesting was that later, I was still awake but starting to doze, and I was going through a sort of chaotic spontaneous visualization sequence. At one point I found myself in the air above and out from something on a cliff wall, I wasn’t sure what but it looked like a sort of balcony had been built into the cliff wall and there were people, maybe asians, standing on it. I zoomed down there in interest and flew over there and into the darkness of the cliff opening and the minute I went in, I had this HUGE body-rush, like a really good archmed. I’ve never had that happen from spontaneous stuff vs. meditating before.

Last night I decided to do an archetype meditation on today — on getting various things worked out I needed to for Ry’s birthday. I needed to renew my license; it took eons to get my certified birth certificate from another state so I could do so. 22 years ago I changed my name and I don’t have any certified document for it which I figured they’d want, dang it. I was borrowing a car I’d never driven, a van no less, for the driving test. And they didn’t even HAVE the book to study for the written test, how dumb is that (”we’re almost always out of them” – the DMV!). I needed more time than my dad probably had in order to get to walmart and order her cake and get a few things… and I needed to work out the car rental and was so worried about money, wanting it to be ok, since I loaned some to my bleeping ex (kids’ dad) who still has not repaid me two weeks after the promised time. Not sure how I could do it, it’ll be like $100/day and paypal refuses to let me promptly transfer money from my bank to them (though they will let me promptly transfer it to anybody else. Go figure!) and I don’t have enough in paypal for the car and they won’t let you use a visa-debit, only a visa. So all in all I just wanted things to go well.

This morning, I remembered what Nero has shown me about believing with faith, about suspension of disbelief, about a specific WAY of thinking about things that actually assumes and accepts that there IS an answer/solution, and that it’s nearly tip of the tongue, and it’s totally obvious, and any-second-now it is going to become clear. It isn’t merely that you are allowing for it; you’re actually forcing the space for it and pressing on it to manifest, but not by wishing, not by hoping, not by fear, but by ‘expectation’.

The archetype was Jayne. This is a character on the science fiction show “Firefly”. He’s actually a funny character; completely untrustworthy, oblivious and sexist and more, yet he is a mercenary and ridiculously tough and good with weapons, and often funny (usually by accident) and sometimes a little touching (like many men-boys are, even the worst ones). But the thing that got me is, I have NEVER had an archetype be anything, anybody, any character, that I knew! Never! I didn’t even know that COULD happen, although once I pondered it I couldn’t come up with any good reason why not.

I said, “Why would YOU be my arch??” and he said, something like (I don’t remember exactly now) it had to do with the ‘untrustworthy’ element more than anything (me not trusting how the day would go) and I had just watched an episode of the show earlier so it was a good ’symbol’. Anyway, I was ridiculously unfocused, it took like 90 minutes to do what I should have done in like 8, and the merge at the end was very small.

But today, the DMV lady actually remembered me from 11 months ago, accepted my daughter’s birth cert I happened to have in my wallet (for other reasons) as a secondary form of ID, solving that problem entirely. Then it turned out I did not have to do the driving test which solved the van problem. Then it turned out I did not have to do the written test, which solved that problem. Then because of those two points we had a lot more time, so I was able to go to walmart and order her cake and get some stuff, solving that problem. Then, the guy at the car rental place tells me it’s way cheaper online and so I do that and it turns out they only have to charge the car against the visa, I called him and he said we could charge the insurance against my debit card, whew, perfect.

As if that isn’t enough, on the way to do all this I was looking in my old (not used anymore) purse to see if I could find our social security cards, and I found a $500 check from a client from the end of April that I had never deposited! And it didn’t have a 90 day expiration on it. I couldn’t believe it! (He will git me for waiting this long, but oh well!)

I was just stunned at how well everything went. I can’t prove the meditation helped, but it certainly didn’t do any harm.

I have been meaning to outline a series of archmeds on body parts. I don’t mean like my elbow, I mean like my liver, thyroid, amygdala gland, the nervous system, fat cells, etc. I’ve been reading endlessly on health stuff and I think it would be interesting to do a series like that.

Now that I am “normalizing” my schedule to allow at least one little meditation time per night, I think I might get back to more of it.

PJ
.

Had some time this evening. First time that I have not been profoundly sleep deprived, and had at least an hour to myself, in longer than I can even remember.

I decided to do some meditating.

First I roll out my world as usual and am reminded–I’d forgotten–that for some reason, a staunch tree grew on my plateau near where I appear. This plateau is super high, nothing but rock and wind, but there it is. It is amazing to me that despite I’d consciously forgotten about this, it’s like the thought form has its own coherence. I couldn’t remember what/why it was there, if I ever knew. I finally decided a tree wouldn’t be a bad thing after all; I mean symbolically it seems ok; so I poured some energy visualization into the overall setting to make it nice for me and IG to meet there. I thought since I meet her under a tree — albeit some distance away, and through a cave, and out into a subworld — that maybe this was a sign I should just do the work here instead.

So I meet IG and after some rapport tell her just whatever she likes, everything I most need to work on, let’s do it.

The first archetype med had me opening my eyes and I was floating in space. This is rather different. Ahead of me is what looks like some kind of gas-cloud constellation, as well as tons of fragments of stuff that looks like everything from asteroids to some distant planets and some moons and even space junk of some kind. The territory this spans is just VAST, and I stare at it and ‘feel’ it in some awe.

I think for awhile about what I can do, how I can share energy with anything this vast, how to work with this as an archetype. I finally decide that I just have to relax and allow myself to ‘fill’ that entire space and my energy to permeate through every object and the space itself, and I imagine myself becoming vast and one with all of that and I get lots of ‘rushing’ energy feeling so that seemed ok. Tons of spontaneous yawning, I get that when doing energy stuff like this at times.

I ask her for something else when that’s done, whatever she wants. I wasn’t even surprised that she gave me another guide and I think I had the feeling that was going to happen before I even asked. This one wasn’t human. It was one of those 50 foot tall egyptian-like statue-entities. Except I didn’t have much egyptian overlay, that’s just the only model I have for those entities in previous experience. Go figure. He tried to tell me his name but I couldn’t quite get it. In the end I had something like two words, like Hot (pronounced haute or hote) and something else with a few syllables. None of it ever worked out fully so I finally shrugged and dropped it. No idea what he deals with. He took up position behind Jared & El Nino who are right behind me. Had some energy in that one as well.

Then I remembered the binding meditation and I went to the room where we’d imprisoned that part of me and just totally absorbed her and allowed her to absorb me and focused on sending energy through the heart chakra and feeling love and oneness and that we would work it out, whatever her issues might be. That was some nice energy too and seemed to work.

Then I dropped into the ground and went down, while a part of my mind played this tiny video like a map that showed how as I went down into the earth I was moving down my brainstem in literal focus somehow. (Don’t ask me to explain that, I don’t know what it means, unless it’s the obvious.) I called for Tek though the room was a bit different, and the angelics who came and put a hand on each shoulder blade behind me, and asked to deal with whatever body thing needed it. The entire room was promptly utterly covered with brown to black thick runny yuck stuck to every millimeter of floor, walls and ceiling. Really gross and pretty archetypal I guess. I’ve had something akin to that before though not that scope of it.

I first imagined that the whole floor was a grate and under it was the body’s waste disposal system. Then I visualized a vertical wide-spread hose sprayer that got from roof to wall to floor and in several feet and then imagined I was gradually spraying all the way around the room. It was taking so LONG. I reminded myself how I’ve been told the ’sense of how long it takes’ depends on me and my acceptance of it mostly. I worked on believing that it could happen much vaster and still be effective and finally got the entire room cleaned out.

Then I went to see the four and hugged my mate really tight repeatedly, and presented to the royalty of The Senior and The Queen, and then we merged.

Then I hugged/shook hands with various guides around me and tried to merge with a few of them.

I told IG I’d be willing to do a dreamlets series but it didn’t come. Then I ended up spacing out a little.

It’s the first meditation of any kind I’ve done for quite awhile. I miss me. I miss meditating. I must return to that.

PJ
.

As a child, I lucid dreamed chronically. And at will. I could drop myself into a ‘day’-dream if I chose. And through early teen years, I would constantly just find myself ’somewhere’, know I was dreaming, and wait to see where I was and what was going on.

As my teen years progressed, my lucid dreaming (and what I later understood were called “out of body” experiences) were still chronic but the “invoke at will “capacity seemed to fade.

When I was 18, I read a book about both lucid dreaming and out of body experiences. It was a disaster. It might have been reverse psychology; the authors spent so much effort telling everybody how it was possible it had almost the reverse effect; it was clear they did not truly expect people to believe that, fundamentally.

It might be that it moved it from something I never thought about — “a given” I thought was normal to everybody — to something kind of “woo woo”. I was something of an official skeptic, left-brain snotty intellectual around that era of life, and it threw it into “that side” of my mental models which it had never faced before.

It might be that it invoked some hidden fears I didn’t know I had. For example, all my life, I could sleep in any position except my right side. No idea why. Just couldn’t do it. The day I read the OBE book, it mentioned something like that this was less common if people were sleeping on their right. I was unable to sleep in any position but on my right side for years after that point!

After that time, I still had lucid dreams and out of body experiences — I was glad to have names for these experiences — but they were more ‘common-occasional’ than chronic. As I got older, they became more occasional than chronic. And gradually they started getting fairly rare.

By now, at age 43, it’s something unusual when I actually have either one.

Remote Viewing when sleep deprived brought on a spate of “nested” lucid dreams a couple years ago. I had a crazy number of sessions I never even begun. I would sit down with my lab book to view and the minute I relaxed, I’d be deeply asleep. I’d wake up the next morning in the exact position I went to sleep in — sitting up with the light on and my lab book in my lap. I wanted to view desperately, but I also wanted to accomplish something online. I worked more than full time and I had a full time job worth of hours for ‘online RV hobby projects’ (programming, communicating, design), and I have a pre-teen who wants pretty much every minute I am willing to give her. If I wanted to do even a tiny fraction of the programming work I had to deduct those hours out of my sleep. Then when I’d finally pull off the miracle of making time to view, I couldn’t do it.

I started feeling like a poser just talking about RV. The number of unfinished and usually unstarted sessions built up until I had nearly a few hundred, over the course of over a year when I tried almost daily and sometimes more than once. I’d cry about it in frustration sometimes when I woke up. I realized that I had simply trained myself to sit down with a lab book and go to sleep, eventually. It was probably my angst about this and my wish to stay awake despite my body’s demands that brought them on.

I would sit down to view, and do a whole session. It felt good. I couldn’t wait to see feedback. So I start opening the envelope — and wake up. And realize I dreamed all of it — session included. But a session inside a lucid dream might still work. So I decided I would write it all down. I didn’t remember it quite as well of course, but still pretty good. So I would write down everything that I recalled, including that it was a lucid dream, and then I would open feedback. Or try. Then I would wake up again, and realize that, too, had been in another layer of dream.

By now I would remember maybe half of the data. And be a little upset because it had all seemed so real. It makes you question reality, frankly. But grim and annoyed, I would determine to capture as much of that data as possible and write it down THIS time, now that I was finally awake. So I would write it down, frustrated that I couldn’t recall it all, and in some sad disappointment, go to open feedback — and wake up. Was it real?

Was this life, or Memorex? I would have no idea. It didn’t feel any more or less real than any of the others. What about the session? I didn’t remember any of the data at all. I’d be seriously pissed off about that, and very weirded out by the “layers of reality” experience. That went on for a few months, until I realized it was probably a side effect of my so adamantly wanting to view that I was dragging it into the sleep that was happening whether I wanted it to or not. I decided I would not do that anymore and it stopped.

I haven’t had a lucid dream since, probably for a year, I think the longest time in my life I’ve ever gone without lucid dreaming. Usually a “degree” of it is often present even when full blown lucidity isn’t, but not the last year.

Today I fell asleep in the daytime. I was sleep deprived and had a blood sugar crash (knew I shouldn’t have eaten that chicken pot-pie!) and there I went. I woke up in the normal position — sitting up with my laptop computer and the light on.

But I had lucid dreamed. The novelty of it was great. I wonder if the brain-stim stuff has something to do with this? I’m embarrassed to admit it wasn’t even a great dream. Usually when I’m lucid it has some feeling you might call ‘grander’ than a normal dream.

This was as proletarian as they come. I was in a dream and this woman was being a total bitch to me for some reason I can’t recall. Real snotty. She’d done something bad like kill someone and was implying she was going to blame it on me. (My pathological artificial guilt complex, if it doesn’t have enough complete BS to project it on, will drag it into dreams. It’s a childhood blame/shame side-effect I’ve learned to recognize.) I grabbed my cell phone and dialed 911 — but messed up the dialing.

Focus!, I told myself sternly. Go slow, get it right. I was very careful, and I got it right, but when I looked at the number on the cell phone screen, it was all messed up again — not even all numbers.

I’m dreaming!, I realized out loud. Well, that seemed to solve everything. I put my cellphone in my pocket and walked toward her, said, “Hey!” and when she turned around, I punched her in the head as hard as I could. Then I just punched her repeatedly until she wasn’t getting up again soon.

I turned around and stomped over to find the person she had allegedly killed, but I didn’t find any body. I went outside and some guy started harrassing me about how I couldn’t go outside. “But I’m dreaming!,” I explained to him so reasonably, and then punched him in the head.

And here most people think lucid dreaming is some kind of spiritual evolution. LOL.

That’s all I remember! After a whole life of LD I don’t think I ever remember using getting lucid as an excuse to beat people up. That’s kind of novel!

Anyway, I wondered if going to sleep with these delta programs that have all the lights on the eyes could be resulting in these. I’m an exceptional hypnotic subject and I have a high tendency to lucidity even when in impossibly deep trance or sleep — I had years of problems once I attribute now to some kind of “delta activity while waking” (among other things) — maybe light that seems to keep me awake a bit and sound that helps put me asleep contributed. I had listened to that last night — but not this afternoon when I fell asleep spontaneously about 40 minutes after eating.

PJ

.]]
>

Just a quick note as I’m already supposed to be asleep.

For the last few weeks I’ve had a problem. It’s like there is this significant, even dominant part of myself, that is completely at war with the others. She feels just furiously stubborn, the real dig your heels in NO! This has affected my work in a way unprecedented and it’s just been horrifying. It’s like being possessed in a way. By someone who is angry and doesn’t want to deal with anything or anybody and flatly refuses to do anything inconvenient. Like cook real food. Or work well. Or whatever. There’s quite a list actually.

I’ve been doing brain-stim stuff the last couple days though I can’t say that relates at all. But this morning I was relaxed and thinking about work and my fear and frustration and that sort of went off into a meditation/daydream of sorts. There was a bunch of people, a small crowd, and they were all me. There was one girl/woman who was a leader of sorts, anyway, normally the person in charge. She was causing all of this though. It was her emotional problem. The problem is, losing my job would profoundly screw up every imaginable aspect of my life, so this is a life and death situation really. I wanted to work. She wanted to refuse. I wanted to work. She refused. We did the normal morning fight about it, and then I must have been slipping into a deeper state of mind as things seemed to get more dreamlike and autonomous then.

We all mutinied against her (although again… I feel she is ‘me’ just as much). We dogpile tackled her literally! Then tied her up and dragged her into this small room like an elevator cart, then made it completely thick metal and impermeably sealed, then released her and made sure there was air and ‘living comfortable’ inside — but she is completely bound inside and isolated from decision making. We decided she could stay imprisoned until we dig out of the horrible work situation she created for us and then I would work on meditating about whatever her stupid problem is.

I’ve felt “at war with myself” before but it’s usually more traumatic and temporary than flat and long term. The amazing thing is that after this, for the first time in weeks I was able to make myself do my normal degree of focus/intensity work to start trying to shore up the damage.

I’ve never in all my years of meditating had something like imprisoning part of myself ON PURPOSE. That’s just odd. Hopefully July will arrive and I can meditate on whatever is up with her.

PJ

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

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

My boyfriend sent me this Seth quote. Wow this perfectly addresses some of the stuff I’ve been working on lately doesn’t it.

Your interpretations of identity teach you to focus awareness in such a way that you cannot follow the strands of consciousness that connect you with all portions of nature.

-Seth

I feel like I’m constantly ‘dealing with’ my ‘interpretations of identity’ and that my inner world doesn’t have the same models as my outer world–at all.

PJ

Visit: http://www.bloodlinethemovie.com

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

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

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

PJ

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

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

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

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

• Inaccurate data point (perceived clearly but does not match target) (problem in raw-data and/or ‘noise’)
• Accurate data points which are perceived inaccurately or incompletely (problem in processing data)
• Accurate data points, perceived accurately, but communicated inaccurately or incompletely (problem in communicating data)
• Irrelevent data which are strongly perceived (problem could be a few areas, who knows)
• Important data which are not perceived (problem could be a few areas, who knows)
• Good session on what is obviously a different target (problem in target acquisition)
• Inability to make clear contact/ get sufficient or specific data (problem could be a few areas)

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

PJ

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

Here’s a few screenshots from memorable scenes. Read the rest of this entry »

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

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

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

——————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an experience I had near the end of 1993 I believe. Although I’ve written it down to others a few times, it’s not in my formal archives and I have no idea where to find it, so I thought I would record it again for posterity. I remembered it after reading the latest post on the CobalSigil blog.

I was definitely in a trance state, but not deeply; I was resting, having finished email, and was considering what to do about dinner, as I gazed mindlessly out my back sliding glass door. It was still very light outside though evening was approaching fast, and I was feeling a bit languid and didn’t much feel like getting up and doing anything.

It took me a little while to realize that something had just happened. Often this kind of thing actually goes on for a bit before my conscious mind clues in and decides to pay attention. I had just “shared” the experience of an entity.

——————-

He had traveled far to make the request. Journeyed among many lands and strange creatures to get to the place where you could make a petition to the Gods. Maybe if you were lucky, the Gods might hear you; there was no other choice, now. Read the rest of this entry »

I would subtitle this “IG Points Out the Obvious”.

This morning me and my best friend were having a discussion about viewing — which we do regularly of course. I don’t even remember all the talk, but I remember what I was thinking about afterward. Mostly, it came down to this:

Why? When we get the totally wrong target, why? When we clearly perceive specific data, and it turns out to be wrong, why?

I don’t care about data you screw up on your own, which is the majority of problem data frankly. I don’t care about poor contact or process issues. All of those are visible at feedback, and you can learn from feedback, and that is a sport-skill. No, I am talking about when a viewer has good contact, has a clear experience, and yet that is not about the target intended. In that instance feedback is useless, is more harm than help to likely psi experience, and we don’t learn anything except not to trust ourselves.

Everybody has this in RV; nobody is exempt. Everybody seems to accept that’s the way it is. Even in the professional lab, viewers will include ‘getting the correct target to start with’ as a separate statistic; one may say, “I’m on target about 68% of the time, but when I am, about 92% of my data is accurate.” Everybody accepts that some portion of the time, a viewer has a perfectly clear piece of data that is totally wrong, or even an entire clear session that is totally wrong.

Nobody has a clue what to do about it. There are all kinds of things people come up with to try and combat this, from the target selection, to tasking, to session cool-down, warm-up, session methodologies, feedback rituals, you name it. Most things ‘initially’ seem to help but eventually it’s the same accuracy % as usual. As an entire field we are just stuck: sometimes we suck and we have no idea how to fix it. The only consolation is that everybody does, to varying degrees; the only thing consistent about RV is its inconsistency.

I accept that this is the case. But I can’t let it go. I want to know, why? Read the rest of this entry »

Prior to this article, it’s best to read the previous Aspect RV post.

So as ‘Aspect RV’ settled into my psyche over time (or my psiche, as I call it, since psi is heavily involved here too), I began to realize that not only could I interact with ‘myself’ during viewing, but that the target itself seemed to interact with me.

At first I didn’t know what was going on. I would start a session and get a flash of something bizarre, like: I’m in a tiny dark stone room and there is a big sarcophagus and brilliant gold light is shining out of it but I tune in just at the INSTANT a huge heavy stone lid is slamming down and shutting out the light. WTF?? I knew it wasn’t part of the target, and I suspected it was information about the session or my contact (so… that wouldn’t be a good sign, in this case…) Or I’d be in the middle of a session and I’d see a person, like an ‘Aspect’ — but they would run in a room and slam the door. WTF?? This began happening more often as time went on. I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t know why it was happening. In the Official Doctrine of Methods, the data does not act out and talk to you. It’s considered “inert information” that you “passively wait for”. Yet my data was not remotely inert, and it seemed to want me to be proactively interacting with it.

So one day I was in a session and I ‘found myself’ on a street I sensed, and there was an Aspect, a woman standing in the sky above me, her feet a couple feet above my head. She leaned down to me and held out a pair of eyeglasses. Determined to do something proactive this time, I leaned up and took them, and then I put them on. Suddenly I found myself rushing through space, at enormous speeds as stars flashed past me, going toward some ball. I can’t remember the target now — it was a planet or moon — but the point was, the “experiential” nature of that data was SO intense, and the data itself definitely did seem on target, that I began to think maybe this ‘interact with the data’ was an idea worth trying. Read the rest of this entry »

Back around early Fall of 1998 — holy cow! Ten years ago exactly — when I was still very ignorant about RV (that is to say, I was a walking encyclopedia about what the expert selling training in the field taught, which is nothing like my models and understanding of things now…) I had a rather unusual experience.

I was in the middle of an RV session when I momentarily ’spaced out’ and then suddenly realized that I could hear/feel a whole big group of people talking, arguing together — inside me. They were all me. All part of me. Read the rest of this entry »

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

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

——————–

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

I’m SO sleepy but felt I needed to record this before I sleep and forget most of it. I did record most of the conversation part in my notebook as it was happening, but it’s barely legible.

Tonight I ran in to see IG, concerned I’d be too sleepy. I just hugged her. For the first time ever, I feel a sort of maternal sense about my IG. Maybe that is natural. Anyway I said, “I don’t know what to work on. I don’t want to do one of the things you give me that are so intangible. All my ideas seem kind of trivial or stuff I’ve done before. What is important, that I should ask for?

I had this sudden memory. Fairly recently my boyfriend said, “You know, it amazes me that you’ve done so much heavy duty internal work, and yet while you consider your weight a major issue in your life, you don’t meditate on that.” He’s right. He doesn’t care about it, but I do, and I guess it IS weird that I haven’t made that a meditation point. Being fat ruined my life to a great degree, the way I see it, and blitzed metabolism that brought that on, kept it on, and makes it damn hard to lose (I’ve lost about 40% of it), just perpetuates the problem.

I thought that sudden memory was IG giving me an answer. So I said, “OK, I want to meditate on “my problem with extra bodyfat” now.”

I sneezed violently.

I said dryly to IG, “Well that’s gonna be quite the meditation I bet.” IG seemed amused, in a good way, the first time I’ve got that sense from her. Read the rest of this entry »

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

~~

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

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

———————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If this continues unabated, a few things happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———————-

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PJ

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

I’ve been thinking lately about my curious behavior. Sometimes, I astound even myself, and wonder how it is I can be so old and still occasionally feel like I have no idea what subconscious motives are making me operate.

In this case, it’s the Antisocial Blues as I call them.

Now, when I moved here to nowhere Oklahoma, I was working 100+ hrs/wk doing programming and related project management. I never left the house except to get fast food (almost my only food) or go to the bank (where the tellers very clearly considered me a drug dealer, given their behavior, because of the large sums of checks/cash I dealt with then. As if I wouldn’t have been skinnier had drugs been an issue, haha). Even office supplies were delivered. As a result, I very seldom encountered other people.

I did meet parents of other kids on occasion, first at daycare and then at school as my kid got older, and at soccor. I always rather hoped to find someone I could bond to, someone who could be a friend, especially as my working hours relaxed slightly, and I got rather tired of having nobody to talk to but a small child and too many cats. But I have so little in common with what seems to be most all the people in my region, that aside from human biology, we share so little we could be aliens to each other. Read the rest of this entry »

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe the only thing consistent about my archmeds over the years is that the bigger the problem, the harder it is to get around to doing them at all; and if I do them, the harder it is to perceive them at all; and if I perceive them, the harder it is to merge with them; the more likely it is that it will take multiple meditations over time to get there.

It just occurred to me that I am not merely working with “problematic issues” the last couple days. I am working with my BIIIIIIG-est problem. Of all the millions of possible problems, issues, archetypes, etc. that I could be dealing with, I chose the BIGgest problem. Of course.

So it’s almost moronic for me to expect that they are going to be easy, go super well, and result in a great rushing merge. It is frankly almost miraculous that I got around to doing them at all, that I could perceive them at all, and that it went as well as it has, and that I’ve had even the barely-noticed merge from a couple. I should be amazed and glad, not bitching about my incompetence.

If I had a brain, I’d be dangerous.

Ok, back to work now…

PJ

“Do you think I should slightly rephrase my request?” I asked IG. “I find with RV and dowsing that a slight word change, even one word, seems to improve the result when asking for intuitive info on the same thing more than once.”

“You can,” she said affably.

“OK, then let’s make this one, ‘The problem I most need to deal with at this time’,” I said. She nodded, and I bowed my head and waited for her to seem done.

When I turned, I saw a big bundle of hanging white gauzy curtains. Hanging from nothing, but very tall. About a 20 foot radius circle of them. I couldn’t see anything inside. I found the edge of one and pulled it aside, and then finally another, until I was completely lost in them, and couldn’t see anything anywhere but the veils surrounding me. I wondered what the veils represented and wondered if it related to death and the infamous ‘veils’ between lives, and the living/dead.

I turned to IG, who I couldn’t see, but felt was just as present. “That’s really… novel, and creative!” I said, suddenly impressed. It occurred to me then, that maybe the “creativity” of your IG is unique to each of them. They’re like… reality-psychology-artists of a sort. Maybe they have a sense of evolution and pride in their own work with us, too. Read the rest of this entry »

I tried to meditate several times last night. Major denial going on. The minute I got about 30 seconds into it– or maybe 5 or 10–my mind just completely went on to something else. I would realize it, 15 minutes later or more, and drag myself back to begin again, but eventually it was late and I fell asleep having accomplished zero. But I woke up around 3:30am, and I figured I ought to make another attempt to meditate.

In the end, I managed to do a 15 minute meditation, and it only took me four solid hours, not counting the night before. Denial sucks.

I went back to IG and asked her for the next iteration of ‘My Biggest Problem’. Whether this was something different, or another stage of the initial thing, who knows, up to her. I let her bring the arch to our space and then I turned around. On one hand, this one was an archetype, not a whole minor world. On the other hand, there were nine of them. Three sets of three. (Curiously, that’s the symbol from a recent dream too.) They were identical soldiers, about 7-8 feet tall, wearing hard stone-like armor with helmets. They almost looked like oversized statues. Read the rest of this entry »

Discovered something surprising today but first I should share some info about Nero on this blog because he’s only mentioned now and then elsewhere and it looks like he is going to figure quite a bit on this one.

First, I’d kind of forgotten the detail or got it wrong concerning him. But more importantly, I had not realized — at ALL, in fact I’d even forgotten some of these things until I re-read them today!! — that in a way, Nero was working on the same stuff with me eons ago as we are doing now — but I never finished. So apparently when I start back up, there we are! Like I never left off. The approach with IG is different but when I saw the accounts of him previous I realized it’s all basically tying into the same dynamic.

Here is a summary of my work with him from previous other-blog entries.

June 2006:

So I visualized sitting here and syncing with my third eye and then looking to my upper left where I had been for the girl.
I nearly jumped back in my mind—a man was standing there right in front of me! I thought WOW, that’s clearer than usual and right-there-ready.
He was maybe mid-20’s to mid-30’s, hard for me to place an age. I was kind of astonished to see him there.
I thought, is this some part of me I don’t want to see for some reason? I wonder why? I just looked at him for a little while.
“Are you part of me?” I finally asked.
“Yes,” he said, nodding.
“Why would I not want to see you?” I asked him, wondering, if he is some aspect of myself, I don’t see anything that odd about him, why would I be rejecting that?
He grinned, reminding me of the ‘Mat’ character in WoT, as if he knew my thoughts and said with a laugh, “I don’t know!”
I realized that I shouldn’t allow myself to be distracted.
“I’m doing psychic work at the moment,” I said seriously. “I want to know the target info. That’s all I want to do right now. Can you help me do that?”
“Will you come see me if I do?” he haggled.
I stared at him, nonplussed as I hadn’t expected anything like that.
“Um. Are you sure you’re a part of me?” I asked again, warily.
“Yes,” he said, looking like he might laugh–in a good way though–any moment.
“What’s your name?” I said, putting off commitment for a moment more.
“Nero.”
“Nero?” I say, breaking into an actual giggle. “You have got to be kidding me.”
“I am not kidding,” he assured me with a droll quirk to his lips, but otherwise seriously.
I thought about it.
“OK,” I agreed. “So I will… ah, just meditate and call you, is that all that is required?”
“That’s all that’s required,” he told me.

And then:

June 2006:

There must have been about 12-16 other people there. [...] I gathered up my courage and agreed, and turned to greet them. And there he was. Nero, the mischeviously grinning dark haired man who had bargained with me earlier. [...] My relationship within the four is of one nature; the added people are more than an expansion, they are more like a… like a different nature of connectivity. Tonight I am going back to talk with the three and see if I can better understand the point of it all, and what they would like of me. Oh yeah. And I have a date with Nero.

And then:

June 2006:

Well, I had promised. So I went back into the inner world to call on Nero. Why any guide would choose a name like that I have no idea. Maybe Ghengis and Napolean were already taken.

He has dark hair, very straight, short and shaggy. Medium to dark complexion, a heck of a strong nose, and dark, intense eyes. A smile that melts me, a grin that makes me giggle and an intensity that is a little bit frightening.

I tell myself that either my imagination is improving by leaps and bounds or something in the last six months has really broken free inside me (and I hope it isn’t what’s left of my mind), because I previously couldn’t ’see’ any guide at all, and I could never hear them. It’s long been my biggest gripe, that I had ‘awareness’ of their presence but I could not see or hear them. Yet I could see him fairly clear all things considered, and hear him as well.

I still have a little bit of a resistance—I have to distract myself slightly in order to get what he is saying, or analytical ego will try to forcibly create my expectations instead. It is an actual Art or skill all its own, interacting with anything and anybody in the psyche-psychic realms; a combination of holding a focus yet releasing a control that walks a fine borderline of attention that I am not sure everybody would be able to do.

So according to Nero, I have shifted into a… new level of perception. But the way he put it made it sound like everybody else had stepped back and I accidentally ‘volunteered’ to accomplish something; it sounded more like a job than an opportunity. I think I would have liked it better if he’d been suggesting that I am happily evolving and he had arrived to serve me. Heh. Aren’t I the center of the universe. But instead it sounded a lot more like I had finally done something I should have done ten years ago and he’d been called in for job training.

He suggests that I’ll be getting into areas where more “proactive” psychic efforts are called for. He is there to help force me to ’see’ what I need to see and would otherwise block; and to mentor me in whatever ‘proactive’ psi he is talking about (I am severely fuzzy on those details), and to protect me until I can protect myself, a topic which rather unnerved me. Last I heard, I was still going on about how since we create our own reality I just won’t believe in anything bad and la-ti-da the world will go fine. (Would someone please inform the IRS? They appear to be violating my Pollyanna’s Rules for Reality.)

I ended up committing to allowing him to override protective systems that would prevent my conscious awareness of things that he specifically chooses to have me aware of. Let’s hope that doesn’t come back to haunt me. Literally.

And then:

June 2006:

I just can’t figure what is up with my viewing except that apparently I’m going through some internal … change. Or something. I also can’t remember the details now of the meditation/session mix (accidental alas) that led into things last night. Suffice to say that Nero seemed to get aggravated at my utter inability to pay attention to anything for more than about 1.4 seconds. EricT calls it OLAP viewing, the RV attention deficit disorder: Yes, blue… stone, and curved at the — oh look, a pony!

So Nero (sounding nothing like the kinder, gentler soul I thought guides were supposed to be) tells me that until I can learn to hold focus decently he wants to see me visualizing red-light triangle outlines until they are utterly clear visually in my mind and remain that way without front-brain (as I call it) effort.

I had this ping in my head when he said this, but it wasn’t until I was into trying it that I recalled this is what the Inner Guide said to me way back in January, though he had also added white circle-outlines after that. So I’m guessing that what I dropped off doing back then, I am doing now. It’s so basic it’s embarrassing. This is magick 101.

But I have to admit he’s right that my focus, which used to be nearly profound, is now really fragmented. He did help at least enough to show me that a slow turning of the shape actually seems to help hold it for some reason. I need more work on getting it fixed and then turning my attention away on the ’surface’ but holding it. Damn it, I used to be so great at this stuff. Maybe 20 years of sleep deprivation and workaholism is finally showing my fraying at the edges.

When I finally got to my session, I was trying to hold the visualizing focus so since I didn’t know how I could do both (and he clearly wanted me to). So I imagined it getting so big it was like a doorway around me, and hence wasn’t in my face, so I could concentrate on viewing.

After a bit (I thought to show me an example of how clear the visual of the triangle should be), he popped a shape in front of me, a rectangle-outline with the corners rounded, made of silver metal, flat but a few inches wide, and it turned, in utter clarity in my head. I had to admit I was impressed at how this seemingly 99%-autonomous identity in my head could produce something in my mind with 4x the clarity I could. I couldn’t seem to get my red triangle-outlines anywhere near that well done.

Eventually feedback arrives and the shape he was showing me was literally the central shape/material of the middle of the target (which had diverse components). And I had thought what he was doing was unrelated to my session! Which seems a rather obvious problem one might have if they can’t keep what they are doing—viewing, vs. meditating—separate.

But I go to view lately and you see what I get—weird stuff, alleged other-lives, and so-called Guides. Sheesh. Guides, of all things. I admit, I feel like a total moron even using that label, given the general intellect of many others I’ve heard using it over time. Who with half a brain would admit to stupid junk like this?

And then:

July 2006:

My sense was that all these new aspects as a total package are like… hmmn. I used to call the four elementals of soul, “the linoleum theory,” like how you look down at some tile and each four create a whole pattern, but then each of the four are linked in different positions into several other 4-patterns, too. Plus, of course, larger patterns. Well it is like maybe I got “the next ring out,” like say 16 or whatever, more tiles all around us. I know that all those identities are part of me and when I am able to accept them, and basically “extend myself through them” in doing so, there will be some benefit to this, more power, more identity, more whatever it is that we think is evolutionary. For whatever reason I am having a difficult time with that apparently.

I had such a problem with Nero—I was completely incapable of merging with him at all—that I asked him and my inner guide (who I called to me for the occasion) and they both said sure, I can work in the tower, with these parts of me, just like I work with archetypes. So I laid him out on a medical table and looked at him, knowing there would be something up since I was having such issues with him.

I kept finding these big, kind of heavy-metal pieces of stuff in him, like formed stainless steel pieces of some structure or object that had gotten somehow half-deep into him. I would take each of them out gently, dissolve them and dump them into the waste grill under my feet to be washed out of the body. I turned him over and finally, the last major visible issue was this really big heavy all-metal knife that was in his back but down toward the lower right side a bit. I worked carefully on getting it out of him without pain, and then decided when I breathed and counted to 3 I would totally “let go of the part of myself that is that knife” and transmute the now-seems-separate energy into gold light at the same time. To my astonishment when I did this, it was a totally body-rocking amazing rush of buzzing energy. So… I guess it did SOME good.

And then:

October 2006:

The dream later felt like a story created for me, more than the other types of dreams I have. I was in a multi-story building with many friends whom I don’t currently know. We were at war with another group of people, and they had a monster, like a giant who looked bizarre, and we were trying to make the big house a fortress of sorts. A man we knew well came to visit us, and began telling us the most fascinating story. It was so fascinating that we just stood there, enthralled, as he spun it out. And when he was done, he stepped aside and we realized that he was working for the bad guys — and while we were all distracted, his people had let in the monster. Everybody scrambled in different directions, as it lumbered into the big room where we were.

I started to panic. What can I do?! I thought desperately.

And then I saw Nero. Remember Nero? I see him more often now, in meditations; this is the first time I’ve ever seen him in a dream. (And I might be inventing that it was him, but I feel more sure all the time that it was.) He was standing calmly in the center of the room, as if he had appeared just to answer my question.

“There is always a doorway out,” he said. “Always. You have to look for it while holding yourself in a state of faith — a suspension of disbelief — you have to accept that it IS there, in order to create the space for that probability to come through.” I tried to do this, imagining that something would fall in front of the monster to slow him down at the same time some opening would come for me, and I told myself to believe it and feel happily-optimistic that “it could happen!” and sure enough, it happened. Later, in a different situation on a high floor with bad guys closing in on me, I found myself in panic again, and Nero appeared and reminded me. He talked me through it, until the situation had a break and I found a way out.

This situation repeated, each time unique, like 100 times in the dream.

And then:

February 2007:

I merged with Nero while I was there by the way. I didn’t mean to. I just threw my arms around him and hugged him and it started happening, so I accepted that and participated and it was really intense. Very cool.

So that is my history with Nero, in a nutshell. Now looking back at that dream; although the approach is different, doesn’t it seem like that is basically the same fundamental dynamic that I just got yesterday?

Like I screwed up — two YEARS ago I had this info and I didn’t work on it and didn’t pursue it and barely meditated — and so when I finally get around to doing it, there it is — as if the lesson still has to be waded through, whether I wait a year or ten or a lifetime. Sheesh! What IG is apparently covering with me today, I started all that time ago, but never did anything with.

Still I found that kind of interesting, in part because I had completely forgotten about a couple of those meetings.

PJ

In all honesty I didn’t think the meditation I finished yesterday was that big a deal. It was different — the whole process had some differences, from how I chose to get to/from the area, to the size of the river in my cave, to the very novel way of presenting an archetype IG chose, to IG herself — but although I had the merge effect, it wasn’t nearly as strong as I would have expected for something that large and complex and for something that serious (’my biggest problem’).

My interaction with outer guides afterwards failed. My interaction with the control center afterwards failed, and then barely worked at all. So on the whole, it was a good effort, but it didn’t seem like an overly successful day.

Yet having a major water dream suggests something did change in me, and now I can’t seem to quit thinking about related stuff even though I’m trying to work here.

So, some more musing on the topic, which I may add to through the day…

Trapped Soul

I once had a viewing session where I sensed some combination of shade (a ghost, but I actually had the old-fashioned sense of the word ’shade’) and ’star’ (an impression of a source of energy-light, but so small, with an overlay of the Crowley use of the word Star in Liber al vel Legis), and believed it to be a soul. The session had so far, as data, been a woman, with something in her hands that opened and closed, who was utterly devastated, emotionally, her whole world just falling apart. Then I sensed that the soul was kind of trapped, was unhappy, had not been able to let go and release from this plane of attention and find closure or whatever. I ended the session, saw that I’d been right about the data (had in fact AOL’d the actual target from the pool of 1000+ in the Viewer Studios), which reassured me maybe I was not just imagining it all.

I prayed to Archangel Michael during the session, that he would help me help her, and I felt this shift in me indicating that this would work, but I needed to focus intently on her, on the goal (her release/whatever), on myself as an open-allowing “bridge” between the two, and otherwise to un-focus and let him (Michael) do whatever-it-was that was necessary for this process. I didn’t know those details, probably can’t know it, and couldn’t focus on them. I had to focus on the larger intent, the several points (me, her, the goal), but it was like a blur-focus with-points-of-light in a way: because the larger focus was blurred, was simply accepting that ‘underneath’, he was working out the details.

I set this focus, and it started happening. Literally I felt my whole body affected, in a way similar to how it feels when I over-merge and it feels like “spiritual squishing” inside me, except this was totally smooth, not something trying to fit “in” with me but rather something adding to me as it “moved through me”. (I believe I can kind of make out the difference of Michael’s involvement, in the sense of power and sense of smooth harmlessness. It’s much more choppy and uncomfortable when I take some identity into me directly.) I almost lost the focus in my distraction at how physical the feeling was, but had this strong sense inside me that Michael was telling me I had to hold the focus — I mean, HAD TO in capitals (I don’t want to know what might happen, had I broken this focus mid-way into the process; would that soul be residing IN me now?? weird idea!), so I held on tight to the focus. By the time it finished, my head was thrown back, my back arched, my mouth open. I bet from the outside it looked like something from a movie.

Anyway, it occurs to me that this was an early, “similar” kind of focus to what I’ve been thinking about here, except that in that case I was “letting Michael work the detail” rather than some subconscious part of myself. But it rather amounted to the same thing in that regard. And the surface attention was interesting; similar, in that it had a deliberate blur-point yet high-attention, yet different in that in the midst of that blur it actually did have a few focus-points, but none of them made strong enough to be a single-focus or to compete with what was going on below. Session here.

Programming

… has some points of commonality with all this. For example when you start a programming project, you do exactly this: nothing. You let it sit in your head, trusting that the back of your brain is going to work it out, while the rest of you has the positive expectation. At some point, there is like this “Ding! It’s done, stick a fork in it!” feeling, and THEN you go forward. And when you begin an outline, it’s top level. While you’re working through the basic architecture, the back of your brain is filling in details, pointing out obvious things you missed, etc. But you aren’t trying to focus on that, you’re doing meta-level stuff, but you’re trusting that the rest of you will work out the finer points.

Martial Arts

Now that I think about it, I’m betting that this is the case in lots of skills, jobs, arts that we do on a constant basis. In martial arts for example, you want to train your body/mind to react instinctively, so while your conscious attention is on your opponent, your subconscious is working out all the details of his plans and the future and how to react to the immediate stuff. Maybe we all have this multiple levels of thinking, maybe most of us have already got the whole concept of the conscious blur-point with subconscious detail down, in one way or the other. Maybe we just don’t normally do it totally on purpose, with awareness of what we’re doing.

Possession is 90% of the Law

One of the things in that meditation was realizing that trying to affect a ton of things outside me was impossible, and instead I had to pull them all into me, then clean/integrate them neatly, and THEN they got the effect desired; then I had to set them free to be whatever. I guess this is a kind of lesson about anything: in order to have ownership of something, you have to be aware that it is a part of you. It can’t seem external. Once it’s internal, then you can do what you will with it. In a way this is the most fundamental lesson of archetype meditations.

And yet, it didn’t work for my outer guides. I have imagined them external and sent them energy before and it’s worked. When I tried to pull them internal and share in that meditation, it didn’t work at all. Odd, that. Could it be the whole nature of being ‘outer guides’ is some kind of *need* for separation between us?

So I asked Nero.

Who was… ‘present’ in ‘this’ awareness (without the meditative inner world) on my request, just like last night.

Me: Do outer guides ‘need’ to be external?
Nero: They ARE external.
Me: But I thought everything in the universe was part of me?
Nero: You are mixing models, rather like mixing metaphors.
Me: Oh.

Me: What’s the best way to work with an outer guide?
Nero: You’re doing it.
Me: When you answer questions before I’ve had time to think the words out, it bugs me.

Me: I haven’t done the exercises you set for me over a year ago. Are you disappointed in me?
Nero: You’re disappointed in you.
Me: That isn’t what I asked.
Nero: My job is to teach you. What that means in terms of your perceived time is up to you. It doesn’t really have anything to do with me.
Me: You’re not affected by time?
Nero: Not in the way you are, no.

Me: Can you help me get thinner?
Nero: We can work on anything.
Me: Do guides have a specific thing they work on?
Nero: Many do. My range is larger than many, smaller than some. It’s mostly geared toward your inner-awareness.
Me: What is your job with me?
Nero: Guides are teachers.
Me: Am I a punishment assignment?
Nero: {seems to find that funny} Not any more than any other human. I am learning from this too.

Me: How come I can talk to you now and used to never be able to hear you?
Nero: You decided to allow that.
Me: Because of the sort-of crush I have on you?
Nero: That’s a simplified interpretation of a more complex emotion.
Me: You mean… because I feel drawn to you because I’m supposed to?
Nero: Something like that.
Me: How come I still can’t hear other outer guides very well, or see them well?
Nero: You haven’t allowed it.
Me: But that one time I saw an outer guide, realer-than-real, stark clarity, that was amazing. And I remember I kept ranting, “I can SEE you!” over and over. That was Brin. But then later I spontaneously let him go. I don’t know why. So the only one I saw that clearly is the one I lost. Kind of like loving IG and then they leave. If I learn to see and hear and love other outer guides, will they leave me?
Nero: Some will. This reflects a state of development. When you reach that, neither of you have further need of the other for progress.
Me: If my real life worked that way, it would be an endless series of annoyances and challenges and things that need to be better aligned to work and obnoxious people.
Nero: {long poignant silence}
Me: Oh… I see.

Me: Well geez, why can’t it be an endless series of glorious things?
Nero: It could be, but that would be a different lesson, different life.
Me: Oh.

Me: So if I start to like you too well, will you leave me too? I know I’m being a baby but everytime an IG leaves I feel abandoned.
Nero: Eventually. But probably not in this life. I am part of your larger pattern.
{I had the sense he meant the me which was of the four, which was of the 16, and so on. He is one of the 16, the first and most dominant I’ve met.}

Me: Can you give me the lottery numbers?
Nero: What do you think?
Me: Never mind. (sigh)

Me: How much of you is in my head?
Nero: If you can’t touch me, I’m all in your head.
Me: I mean, how much of you is real?
Nero: Define real.
Me: I mean, how much of you is imagination?
Nero: Imagination is the tool that delivers you the information. That doesn’t make it the source of the information. Like a television does not source the information, it’s just a carrier. You know that from the archetype work.
Me: Well yeah but… ok I’m not asking this right I guess. Is my conversation with you just deluding myself?
Nero: About what?
Me: About you, about you being a separate identity, or whatever.
Nero: No, but it wouldn’t really matter. If you imagined talking to yourself and got answers, and you did it well, it would be just as useful if you actually talked to a guide and got answers.
Me: So… you mean kind of like that time OTO’s Bill Heidrick told me that stuff about his opinion on aliens and entities, and he said whether we considered them part of us or apart from us, was a cultural label and how we needed to see it, and not any objective thing. Whether you are a part of me or apart from me is like that?
Nero: Yes and no. But for simplicity, yes. You have said you feel that spiritual technology is a personal relationship. Consider this a personal relationship you would not have in the same way, if you perceived outer guides as part of you. Sometimes there is an advantage to considering something a part of you, like in your earlier meditation. Sometimes there is an advantage to considering something apart from you.
Me: Ok. I think I see. I think.

Me: Will you view with me?
Nero: Yes, if you like.
Me: Can you be like, a monitor?
Nero: If you like.
Me: Will it help me?
Nero: That process is up to you, not me.
Me: Oh. ok.

Me (after thinking): So… if I suck, it’s my fault, that’s what you’re saying.
Nero: Let me choose my own words.
Me: Sorry.
Nero: I viewed with you once before.
Me: When?
{Then I remembered: It was when he was giving me the exercises, visualizations of a red open triangle and a white open circle. Over a year ago I think? Not sure. (The Red Cairo blog has info about meeting him.) He showed me how my focus could hold it steadily a lot better if I imagined it slowly turning. The slight constant shift of it provided ‘new’ information that allowed my focus to stay-current. Otherwise, when something is static, the focus after a moment starts sliding off to anything ‘moving’. Rather like looking at a still field, and it is the one thing in motion that gets your attention; this is the way body-senses work too. Keeping something in slight motion, allows the focus to stay constantly re-focused on that single thing. Well he had shown me that and told me to practice visualizing these two things until they were very clear for me, even in front of me with my eyes open in real life. I had gone into a session then and he had interjected to show me this shape. It was a rounded rectangle, thick, slightly curved, and it was so incredibly clear and real-seeming I could hardly believe it. I thought to myself that he was demonstrating how real this stuff should seem when I was practiced. But a short time later when I got feedback, which was little more than that EXACT shape in an object, I realized that he had been helping me with the data; that it was using the same process/dynamic that he had been showing me a few minutes prior. I’d forgotten all about this until just now.}

Now I’m REALLY Rambling…

Totally unrelated, sorta: I’ve often thought maybe a problem in RV is keeping the actual target in focus rather than shifting to more focus on the data incoming or what it sparks. I wonder if there is a way to hold the target in focus but imagine it moving slightly so it can stay more presently in single-focus without the ‘movement’ of other-info related to it, ‘distracting’ the mind.

Hmmn. I wonder if it can be held in blur-focus like the exercise and then let the elements get worked out and presented by the subconscious. In a way this almost sums up RV except I’ve never had quite that model/state of mind for it the way I did for that meditation.

I wonder if you can hold something in a blur-focus but yet with the task intent as that point-of-light (rather like the trapped soul exercise with Archangel Michael) AND have it rotating slightly or something for better singular fixed focus.

Or maybe I am making this way, way too complicated… maybe it should be more simple, not less…

OK. I should be spending time on work or my next meditation, not blogging.

PJ

I was thinking just a bit ago, while driving my kid to school, about where I have felt that feeling before. The one in the meditation and in the dream both. The one where there is much info under the surface, you don’t and even can’t know it consciously, but you have to trust that your subconscious can handle it, and you have to hold your conscious intent in such a way as to make that happen.

It’s an odd contradiction of sorts. You can’t look at it directly consciously; none of it is clear enough, and focusing on any one thing would make it impossible, it would mess it up. Kind of like how when you’re doing something fast and complicated, physically, sometimes you have to NOT focus-in or you will screw it up; you have to let that semi-autonomous part of your brain, the one that manages the amazing physics of catching a ball when juggling 5 of them, to operate. In a way you are UN-focusing on any-single-thing consciously, while holding the intent that the lower-level of your brain is going to be able to catch any number of unknown things SUBconsciously, and at the same time you have to hold this sort of “optimistic, positive expectation and belief that it could be ok, this could work.”

I think this relates to probabilities and creating reality. So often we don’t really know WHAT it is we are trying to accomplish; if we did, we would be trying to force only a single outcome which is vastly less probable; what we really NEED, is the ability of the part of ourself that CAN manage all that confusing mess of probabilities, to reach down in there, sift out the ones that are decently probable and good and one way or another (no matter how indirectly or surprisingly) will bring about the desired end result.

But with the conscious mind, if we are focused on any specific thing, that is what our intention follows. So we can’t focus on any one thing during this. But we do have to focus on the base intent (the positive expectation and how the lower-level is sorting probabilities) in order to “force” the process to occur.

So it really IS like those magic-eye pictures:
1 – You deliberately are staring at it (paying attention), but
2 – You are creating a blur-point and not focusing on it, and
3 – You accept that your brain is going to work out the hidden pattern, then
4 – The pattern starts becoming conscious, and you give it time to flesh out, then
5 – You can finally shift your single-focus to the newly-exposed pattern, and actually SEE the ‘hidden picture’ which now, to your focus at least is “fully manifested”.

Hmmmnnn.

I’m reminded of one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies, “The Zero Effect” by Jake Kasdan (starring Bill Pullman, who I really like):

Now, a few words on looking for things. When you go looking for something specific, your chances of finding it are very bad. Because of all the things in the world, you’re only looking for one of them. When you go looking for anything at all, your chances of finding it are very good. Because of all the things in the world, you’re sure to find some of them.

– Daryl Zero

PJ

I dreamed last night, and I think it symbolically relates to the meditative stuff so I’m putting it here.

I lived on a fairly high floor on an island. But it was storming bigtime, a literal typhoon, high winds and seas, and the waters and flooding came. Concerned it was going to reach my floor even though it was so high, I became really worried when it was obvious it would. A wave knocked down the outer wall of my apartment and I grabbed the big soft sofa and held on as tight as I could.

The sofa I was on washed out of my apartment and into the water. Sure I would capsize and die at any moment, or something big would hit me and I would die at any moment, or in fact SOMETHING was likely to happen causing me to die at any moment, I held on to the sofa, closed my eyes tight, and tried to “think positively about every good probability that could happen to save me”–not to spell it out in my mind, because I did not know WHAT those probabilities might be, but to allow them, to assume that my subconscious was capable of finding and arranging them, it feeling just like when I had allowed the many disparate archetypes to come under connection in my meditation earlier–and time passed.

I woke up later to find myself floating near the far shore of a different island that had been a helluva distance away. This was astronomically improbable, that I would survive the storm and flood and typhoon and end up that far away. As my sofa beached itself, I got up and waded through the water toward the shore. There was a small loose group of people there, some of whom came to me curiously, and when it became known that I had miraculously survived getting washed out a high window all the way from the other island, I became something of an instant celebrity.

I stayed on that island for awhile.

Eventually when things were cleaning up a bit I went back to my own island. My building was still standing. I went up the stairs to my floor and into my apartment. The wall was gone of course, and most of the door, and a portion of the wall to the next one over. There was a sign saying that they (someone official) was going to be “re-flooring” part of my level and all of my apartment, so I walked gingerly.

In the next apartment, two women were there, one black and one white. {Note: this is a symbol of the Four for me, the polarities.} They made it clear to me that I was not going to be appropriate living on that island anymore. The authorities had imposed rules that would somehow, implicitly be a problem for me. I didn’t really understand. I went to a different part of the island, and some political council was meeting, walking around looking at the situation, and one of the men saw me, and said that I was to be jailed… for something that seemed kind of retarded, but also seemed to relate to my gall in surviving that storm and going to the other island.

I considered living there in hiding. Taking a new identity. But I saw the future, where eventually I was caught. I decided I simply wouldn’t be able to live on that island any more. The other one had seemed so much more free, even though it was less developed, and the people were kinder to me. So I was arranging to get a flight back to the other island when I woke up.

In my dreams, water nearly always represents spirit, houses nearly always represent the structure of my reality, vehicles (from bikes to cars) represent my body. When I’ve had fairly significant internal shifts, I have often dreamed about various kinds of flooding, often ocean (I am a beach-girl, growing up, so it’s usually ocean). Seems at least potentially related to the meditations earlier.

Hoping to get to another later today.

PJ

Well, the new IG and I started our first meditation today.

It was on “my biggest problem.” This was destined to be a problem meditation because, of course, it’s on a problem. The bigger the problem, the more likely the archetype will be unclear, the process confusing, etc.

(Unless it’s one of those where the arch is instead, utterly terrifying. I recall doing a couple of ‘fear of psi’ archmeds, which I thought would be no issue at all, that were so frightening I had to do them during the day with my eyes open, standing against one wall and placing my sense of the archetype at the other side of the room. But usually problems start fuzzy and confusing, not scary.)

My idea of ‘my biggest problem’ is that IG should choose. It could be something physical, emotional, spiritual, psychological, some issue in my manifested reality, some combination of things — totally up to IG. After working one round, the next request for ‘my biggest problem’ should, logically, be something different, as we assume that the one already dealt with is then improved.

Meditations on any problem are a pain in the ass. They often take me several tries, even days if not a week, to get all the way through the process. The diplomatic explanation is that it is a difficult process requiring much internal adjustment, and this has “its own time”. The plain explanation is that I’m a wimp and tend to use distraction/denial as a shield, so it just takes me forever. I have what my buddy Eric calls the OLAP syndrome: “Adjusting this, doing that, then re– OH LOOK, A PONY!” Some kind of psycho-spiritual ADD.

I wasn’t looking forward to doing this with my new IG, since I don’t know her yet and am slightly nervous as to how it’s going to go. But this is the way it worked out, so I will have to assume there is some reason for that and go with it. Read the rest of this entry »

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

The more intense relationships have the deepest degrees of attachment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

PJ

Last night when I got home from our monthly ‘awesome-day’ as we call it — severely overstuffed from Olive Garden, under-sleep’d from the night before, and rather exhausted — I had the feeling that for some reason, I really needed to go see the Four. I could feel the Senior calling me.

I’ve been avoiding my internal world. Not for the usual denial reasons, but for a reason I’m embarrassed to write about: much like in my external life, I’ve had a hard time dealing with a personnel adjustment.

***

I have a hard time getting to the point where I genuinely trust someone fully. Blame it on a bad childhood, I don’t know. But I don’t have many people I call a true friend. When I DO finally trust someone fully, I over-bond to them, as if they are my sibling, lover, friend, parent, etc. all rolled into one. I would die for them. I’m a bit of an extremist and friendship is one area where that really becomes apparent.

When I lose a friend–which used to be very rare, until I made the mistake of making a few friends in the RV world, where people become irrational and paranoid, assuming they weren’t ‘friendly-but-slime’ to begin with–I take it really hard. It’s a huge thing to me when I lose a friend. Even though it’s me that makes that decision, I grieve deeply over it. And it usually takes a great deal of abuse or betrayal that nobody sane would take before I will give up on someone, because loyalty is a big part of my Taurus Moon I suppose, and I seldom see the problems at first because I trust, and I give the benefit of the doubt for far too long.

It’s no wonder I don’t get that close to too many people; it hurts so damn bad when it doesn’t work out, it’s like close family dying on me.

I am not much different in my internal world. I over-bond.

***

So I sat down and met the four (which includes me) and we merged, and just sat there gently and quietly for awhile. Normally we ‘do’ something when merged, so I was a little confused by the not doing anything except existing in tandem. I finally relaxed truly, to let them in. At which point I understood why I was there.

It was about IG. Inner Guide. Which is why I’ve been avoiding my innerspace for awhile.

Since I began archetype work with my inner guide back in … 1991 I think it was, one thing has happened at intervals: my inner guide changes. The problem is, this invariably happens just when I have gotten to the point of genuinely LOVING my inner guide, I mean really bonding to them like an inner divine. And then it is time for them to go, and I get a new inner guide. Which is always uncomfortable for awhile, because I don’t know them, don’t trust them, and I hurt because the IG I loved so much has left.

About a decade ago, one of my outer guides answered me, when I asked why all my guides were always men, that they all appeared as men to me because I was not as comfortable with women. Not as trusting. It’s harder for me to make women friends than men friends; I had terrible (as in, genuinely insane, slightly homicidal) role models in women when young. And although I’ve been lucky with friends much of my life, the fact remains that the crazy- and betraying- ratio of women with me is about 10x higher than that of men. (This is probably less because women are more prone that way, and more because my childhood modeling gives me poor judgement about the women I choose, I suppose.) Some of my archetypes are women, but that’s different.

Some months ago, IG told me that it was his time to leave. I was deeply upset. I cried. I told him I didn’t want him to go. My new IG appeared and for the first time ever, it was a woman. I left my innerspace and didn’t go back for a long time. And then when I did, I “forgot about” the change. I called my old IG and insisted that he work with me. Which he did. And a few more times, conveniently “forgetting” that he had told me he needed to move on.

About a week ago, IG made me remember all that. I realized that I had been in some kind of deliberate denial, forcing him to stay with me, refusing anybody new. My intent pulled him in, anyway. I refused to let him go.

As the four, we Understood this was… Inappropriate. I hadn’t realized until last night, when they shared their understanding, that there are several implications to this.

The first is that he has his own destiny, and development, and when it is time for him to leave me, it’s because he has other things to do.

The second is that I have my own as well, and my inner guide apparently reflects something about the inside of me. It isn’t coincidence that they leave sometime after I’ve been working with them while utterly in love with them, as it turns out. They showed me, that it is basically a stage of developmental completion. When I get there, it is time to move on to a new stage of development, which means a new Inner Guide.

I tried to refuse. I started crying my head off. I pulled IG to me and threw my arms around him and begged him not to leave me. I shifted our forms and laid on his giant froggie head and bawled like a little girl about it. He shifted us back and stood with his arms around me for awhile and then told me he needed to go, and I needed to let him go, and accept my new guide.

I finally stepped back and let him go, still being a baby about it. My new IG stepped forward. I looked at her and shouted, “I don’t LIKE you!” and burst into tears again and vanished her back to the other world and away from me with the four.

I could feel from them that she understood (of course; IG knows everything) and wouldn’t take it personally.

Well I do. I don’t WANT a new guide. Especially a female guide.

I know that all my IGs are some % of me, that we overlap in the middle. I don’t care. I know that eventually I will love her just as deeply. I don’t care. For now, I feel a little embarrassed that I was so immature about it that the four actually had to “adjust” me, like I’m a child. And a lot hurting because my closest friend in my inner world has moved on and now I’m without him.

It’s one of the oddest things about the inner landscape, that all the identities in there, while part of me, are “more” as well, and that everything has its own stages of development. I know it reflects as much about me, as about him, that my known IG has left me.

Still. I already miss him terribly.

Returning my attention to the four, I promptly passed out into sleep. Sometimes I guess the only time they can really commune with me is when I’m unconscious I guess.

***

This morning I finally acted halfway responsible and went back in to talk to new IG. The problem is I’m planning several meditation rounds that are pretty hard core and I need IG desperately. Having to do this with someone I don’t even know let alone have that level of trust with is not appealing at all. I told her that plainly. She said that’s why I need her (the new stuff), as if somehow she is best qualified to help with those things. Whatever.

Eventually I sorta made friends, held hands and then finally hugged her, and then cried on her because I was still mad and missing my old IG. I can’t see her very well at all yet. That means I am not integrated with her. The detail of appearance tends to come over time. She’s a little taller than me but so far that’s all I have.

My last IG was the first one who ever wasn’t fully human. He was some bizarre amphibian-like creature that took human form for me, but he had liquid black eyes, small holes where ears should be, and a funky spots along his head, and kind of pale clammy skin. I wouldn’t have known that weirdness if I hadn’t insisted on knowing him as he truly was in his natural state. Kinda slimy, but gigantic, the size of one of those Olmec stone heads. I used to lie on top of his huge head just to be with him. Had I seen this at first I probably would have feared him or been grossed out by him, but as I grew to love him more I grew to see him better and it was ok then.

And this IG is the first one who wasn’t male. This makes me laugh, thinking maybe it was easier for me to accept a bizarre clammy amphibian than it was a woman.

I grilled her for awhile as if it were an interview for the position. I’ve never done that before, but then I’ve never been quite this upset about the changing of the IG guard before either. She is putting up with me acting like a bonehead. Odd, most the time when I’ve got a new IG I’m actually rather intimidated by them. Her I’m not. Maybe because of the gender difference, I’m not sure.

I fell half-asleep, and kind of woke up in the middle of some unusually sensual half-dreams about a woman. Not the kind of sexual yearning I tend to have (certainly my boyfriend would be surprised). I wondered if that was some inner way of relating to that new part of myself being female.

Well, we’ll see how it goes. It cracks me up that I can be traumatized and crying over something “in my head.” It’s lucky for me that the people who know me in person don’t know anything about my interior and psychic life, I suppose.

PJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing. I could do nothing.

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

I whispered out loud: “Daddy.”

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

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

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

“Are you real?” I whispered.

“For a little while,” he whispered back with a smile.

“Why did you leave?” I demanded.

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

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

“Things are as they should be,” he said gently.

I stared at him, in surprise and anger.

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

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

I nodded silently yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It dawned on me slowly, but deeply.

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

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

As if pain had made them both more alive.

Had forced them to ‘feel’ in ways they never had.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

Tom, like my brother, needed his guitar.

PJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 – An arbitrarily created ‘target’ identity;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR SOMETHING.

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

PJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is true based on their data.

It offends me greatly anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there something we are missing about “intent?”

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

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

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

PJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is entirely complicated by a few facts, like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geometry:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PJ

When I’m in an altered state it’s often difficult to remember what the hell I’m supposed to be doing in a session.

I made a little desktop post-it for my arch process so I could kind of open one eye and look at the list while viewing. I wondered if I’d ever posted this, since I’ve talked about the ‘archetype RV’ and ‘aspect RV’ methods I’ve developed over time. I don’t think I’ve posted the current version anyway, of the arch version, so I’ll go through it here.

(The points are below the explanation.)

————————————–

There are several major categories of the session.

* There are ADMINISTRATIVE points, which is basically just the physical process or points of protocol.

* There are EXPERIENCE points, which is what I call it when I am (for example) working with the target as an archetype, or with Inner Guide.

* There are DATA points, which is what I call it when I am (for example) literally attempting to get information about the target “as focused via feedback and/or the tasker’s intent”.

However, in the case of archetype RV, there are several sections which are both of those (both data and experience).

The data is not pure at those combined points–or maybe it is more pure, I guess it depends on how you look at it. It is experientially-based and target-influenced as a me+target=third thing. Rather like sex, it is the sum of the parts of both my and the target archetype’s experience and how we perceive each other and work together. It is basically us getting to know each other, and the target and I sharing some learning about whatever IT wants–and whatever I want–and some of both.

Although this experience in some respects is likely to touch on data that is part of or related to the actual target data, most of it is either not, or is not easily discernible as being so. These points of the session are about genuinely exploring the target as a collective of consciousness, with respect and interest and fascination. So in summary, the data at points 5-8 is not likely to be the literal “surface data matching feedback or tasker-intent” that is RV’s true goal.

My hope and reason for doing this, is because I want to genuinely ‘get to know’ targets. Not just get surface impressions, as if I am strip-mining the universe for cheap quick mineral facts I can walk away with for my convenience, but instead, a caring, fascinated, “mutual exploration” between the target and I, with respect, so perhaps I will understand the target and its many elements and nature better internally–and perhaps, if I’m lucky, future targets with similarities or points of overlap, I might have better contact with as a result.

Point 9 is where I am asking the target to have mercy and help me focus only on “just give me the facts jack” as Remote Viewing technically wants. This is the single clean RV point in the session.

Point 10 is a summary point. This amounts to a ‘presentation session‘ as I call it. Basically it is a review of point 9 data with the added consideration of the ‘experience’ of points 5-8, some summarizing, some fleshing-out, some cleaning up of the write-up. It does involve psi, so I still consider it session work, but it is more like adjunct session work. The session work in point 9 is true session — whatever comes as data is the data. Point 10 has more evaluation involved, and is what creates the final product I post or hand over.

(I know, legions of viewers are going, ‘What?! You don’t hand over your RAW data?!’ No. You get what I give you, if I’m viewing for you. My sessions have personal insights that are private, abbreviations everywhere, process notes that are not about the data but about me, stuff I want to vent by writing and forgetting, and are nearly illegible. Point 10 creates something that is legible and comprehensible. Now, if I screw it up between 9 and 10, that is my fault and my problem. But learning to end up with a presented product that is workable for onlookers or users of the data, is one of my goals. I realize this contradicts one of the basic doctrine points of RV and ‘raw data’ but you know… so what. I know people who sort so much data in their head, what ends up on paper isn’t remotely ‘raw’ (if it EVER is, don’t get me on that argument…); I simply choose to do some of my processing on paper, but it’s private. Viewer Don Williams has a great debate with this idea. See the link on P-S above and his comment with that.)

I now consider point 12 (feedback) to be a data collection and experience point as much as an administrative point, because with this method, so often I get additional info and have some experiential sense of the target perceiving “my” perception of IT with the feedback. The data isn’t in protocol at that point but it’s not part of the session so it doesn’t matter.

I believe that as an experience point, the feedback “shared with” the target while it and I are “woven together”, is not only very important to “internal learning” and “integration of experience,” but this has resulted in more amazing experience thus far than just about any other thing I’ve done in RV. When you go into this as a genuine “joint venture,” it’s still amazing when it turns out to be exactly that; when the target as consciousness perceives YOU, and wants to know what you are like, and has opinions about how you/your people perceive it. This is the part where I’m forcibly reminded that this process is not merely something on paper and not merely a nice idea in theory, but is a pretty hard core psychic experience in practice.

***

Now so far, the problem is this approach takes awhile. Being the procrastinating whiner I am, I have often ended up getting to like somewhere in point 6 or 7 and then having to jump to feedback. Obviously since the main data and session work is at the 9-10 point, that’s a disaster for the data, which hasn’t really even been pursued in “what matches feedback/tasker-intent” mode yet.

I’ve been unfair to myself and the method a bit, obviously. If I skip the real data steps, I have no right to gripe about it because it seems like the experience was better than the data… of course, doh. So I’m going to be working on a time setup here that will give me the real time I need for doing one of these sessions correctly at least a couple times a week. It takes awhile to write up the experience as well (as I’m only recording data during session) so that I have some record of it. Overall it’s a significant time investment.

————————————–

SESSION FORMAT (ARCHETYPE RV)

[-E-] = Experience
[-D-] = Data
[-A-] = Administration

0 > Open Session [-A-]

1 > Go to Round Plateau w/IG [-E-]

2 > Give him task#/target info [-E-]

3 > Work with archetype [-E-]

4 > Have IG weave us together [-E-]

5 > Target Lead… [-E-][-D-]

6 > My Lead… [-E-][-D-]

(I let target choose the sequence of 5&6)

7 > Joint Venture… [-E-][-D-]

8 > Anything Else… [-E-][-D-]

9 > Basic Data… [-D-]

10 > Presentation subSession… [-D-]

11 > Recording/Posting Data… [-A-]

12 > Get Feedback, review w/Arch [-E-][-D-][-A-]
* sometimes point 16 goes here instead

13 > Have IG unweave us [-E-]

14 > Ask IG to clean/heal/adjust me [-E-]

15 > Close Session [-A-]

16 > Record Overall Experience [-A, sometimes -E intervenes]

————————————–

And that’s it. None of this is complicated but it requires a good deal of “attention” and of course, ability to hold a solid “interactive meditate state” which not everybody can do without practice.

This particular process is the *polar opposite* of the traditional CRV as presented in the “very complex on paper do it as fast as you can without thinking” approach.

This has zero rules about the on-paper–is totally freeform in that respect, though I have my own format that Point 10 would usually present something in.

It is entirely focused on taking time for “genuinely getting to know” the target–NOT just “as data” but as what THE TARGET believes itself to be and wants to share.

It could be considered an “animist” approach to consciousness in this respect (everything is consciousness; every grouping of consciousness has some degree of awareness, some more than others; all able to be interacted-with by human consciousness).

It is like slow-food home cooking of gourmet meals with fresh garden ingredients, vs. grabbing your fast food as you drive past the window. It is a deliberate attempt to focus with respect and gratitude and interest on and with the target. I tend to agree with Seth who once said that “Information wants to be known.” I feel that my session experience is as much an opportunity for the target to get something out of it as for me.

Some of the reason for this is because I really AM interested in getting to know “the nature of things” — that’s the magickian hidden in me I suppose — sure my ego wants the data, wants a good session to brag about and feel proud of, but my inner-self wants to genuinely KNOW the target, in the fullest way possible. The archetype RV process is a kind of making love to another aspect of consciousness in the universe.

Which leads to the obvious question: what if the target is something horrible, like an evil person, or a bloody death-disaster? Sometimes it is. These things are as much a part of the universe as anything else. Does the archetype work mean I get way, way, WAY “closer” to “the target” even when it’s something we would consider horrible? Yes. It does.

So far (maybe fortunately), the worst I’ve had while using this method is a woman at probably one of the worst points of her life, literally bawling in grief. In that session, I ended up feeling there was literally a lost soul, and connecting with Archangel Michael and holding the intent to fully free the energy. That was a pretty amazing experience. And it did turn out to be what I said data-wise, though frankly that paled compared to my interest in the non-feedback portions of the experience.

I’ve had several sessions in this format where the target was a ‘thing’ which interacted and shared with me as ‘an identity’ (such as Ganymede, and the Edmonton Tornado, as two examples, though I’ve had others prior).

And, I’ve had several sessions in this format where I felt a definite sense of spiritual squishing, as if another identity was climbing into the tight space of my psychology with me, and it’s had side-effects both during and after the session that seem to reflect much more of a ‘merge’ than is normal even for most psychic work let alone for RV. Dealing with it after takes a little time and is the reason I added in a step in my process where IG basically helps me deal with the fallout of such experience.

My boyfriend gets pissed off when he feels like he is talking to someone else. I have to keep reminding myself not to talk to him after archetype-RV sessions as a result, but since they are often neat experiences I want to talk about, I end up feeling sure it will be fine, but it never is. He’ll be giving me grief about my first real merge like that, the Steve McQueen target (which HE tasked me, ironically!) till my dying day I bet. The real problem is that who I am prior to a full de-weave by IG (and awhile after that, frankly) is just who I am and I’m neither sorry nor concerned, at that moment, about what anybody else thinks about it. It does, of course, make the tasking somewhat more important to be concerned about, for obvious reasons.

——————–

I have a lot of competing theories. One of them is that just maybe, if viewers got MORE from a given session experience than we do, that far fewer sessions (read: years of time) might be required prior to more advanced levels of skill. I think it’s possible that if I truly get to know the target on the inside–its fuller nature, the target from its own point of view, etc.–that perhaps I will be accomplishing one of two things:

1 – better familiarity on my part, or

2 – better acceptance/interaction with me on the target’s part.

Yes… this does suggest that I am saying humans are not the only sentience and that targets have more spiritual depth than gum wrappers even if it were, in fact, a gum wrapper. I’ve considered whether this might qualify as a displacement of responsibility or a projecting-upon (excessive anthropomorphism), but I choose to see it as a matter of respect, and an understanding that psi works *because* either the universe is much more “me” than I realize (in which case I should be interacting with it with love), or the universe is much less “me” than I realize (in which case I should be interacting with it with love), but in either case, that psi works because of the “relationship” that we are able to have with anything, anywhere, anytime.

I’m all about that relationship. I realize that in RV-proper, the data on paper is what matters most, but I am interested in the relationship first, and the data second. It is my hope that this kind of focus will actually improve the data in the end by better connecting me with the target in the beginning. We’ll see.

——————–

Concerning familiarity, and thinking that a ‘deeper interaction with the target’ might increase how much “true understanding” I hold inside to help me with future RV, I’m applying the following logic to it: in my experience, it doesn’t matter what you are doing–software programming, italian cooking, learning to speak japanese–the more you “fully immerse yourself” into what you are doing, the more you see two specific results:

1 – better, deeper, more complete knowledge of the art you are pursuing, and

2 – a deeper level of understanding that can be applied in varying degrees to the rest of the universe.

In other words, every one of the zillion elements–and the sum of their parts divided a thousand ways–that you glean from #1, becomes part of your base repository of understanding, things you grok at the core level and don’t need to consciously think about any more.

Of everything else in the world, many of them are going to have one or more of the components, elements, dynamics, relationships, sequences, etc. etc. that you’ve absorbed. Everything which is already familiar is–already familiar. Is that not the whole goal of RV practice, to make the intuitive experience of elements whether disparate or complex “more familiar”, so that we can more accurately comprehend and communicate?

Well, that’s what we work on with practice. But I have long felt that my experience of RV, even though the sessions were sometimes good data-wise and the experiences sometimes good contact-wise, just seemed like it was missing some depth. I felt like someone who’s had quick sex and shallow experiences and liked it all just fine but eventually started thinking hmmmn, you know, isn’t there something more here?–and felt driven to pursue something deeper, something more meaningful, something which would make what seems the same experience on the surface, into something more richly rewarding and, hopefully, noticeably better in end-result, as well.

We’ll see. I’m still at the bare-bud stage with this. I haven’t had time to do that much with it, but hope to find a lot more time in the coming future, now that I have left all online RV stuff, and aside from “life”, am simply writing and doing personal stuff.

——————–

I guess at some points I’ve just felt like, although RV works, the degree of consistency (how often it works and to what degree) are just not acceptable to me. If what you’re doing isn’t working, do something else, as the saying goes. I mean what I was doing worked–to the degree it worked for anybody, maybe a little moreso–but it just doesn’t seem like enough to me. I feel like we are missing some utterly huge, gigantic, core and central things that we are so oblivious to and will feel like morons if we ever discover it. I don’t know what that is, but I know that the best way around something is usually through the middle, so that’s kind of what this is.

——————–

It may turn out that this is not workable; that it is fun but not ideal for RV. Initially that was my impression but I was unfair with the process, as I noted above, so I am going to give it a proper go this time and record the results well enough for me (and onlookers) to get a decent look.

And if it turns out to be totally non-ideal in some way, that’ll be ok too. I believe it is worth the experiment. I don’t feel this ‘has’ to work; I’m not going to try and force one shape into another in my eagerness to be ‘right’ in this case, because I think no matter WHAT the answer, it is all equal; it’s still an interesting experiment worth doing. And whatever the answer turns out to be for me, might be different for others anyway. So the answer doesn’t matter.

And if it turns out to be dangerous in some way, as some people have insisted that “interacting with the target” IS, then I guess I’ll learn the hard way and onlookers can just learn vicariously. (As the joke goes, it may be that my sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.)

But if it turns out to have value to the viewing end result for me in the end, then it will have been well worth the effort, despite the more intensive amount of time and attention required.

PJ

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

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

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

Church and Hypocrisy

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

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

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

Religion vs. Spiritual, and ‘Agnostics’

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

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

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

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

Remote Viewing Had To Be In Here Somewhere, Of Course

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

But now getting back to the subject…

Church as a Governmental Construct

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

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

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

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

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

Theological Identities – Mine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mary and Jesus

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

a) I am not a Christian, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theological Identities – In General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experience with Divine Entities

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

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

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

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

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

My Divine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PJ

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

We assume.

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

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

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

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

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

How much around us, do we not see?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PJ

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 26 December 2007

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

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

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

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

A filter I’ve been too close to see.

An assumption I’ve been too close to question.

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

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

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

***

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

To be as spontaneous as humanly possible.

To put no judgement on the process for now.

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

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

We’ll see what happens.

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 16 October 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 28 May 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 26 May 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analytical Overlay, also known as AOL

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

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

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

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

AOL: The Labels of Conclusion

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

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

AOL and Learning Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Control Issues and ‘Allowing’, AKA “Let it Be”

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

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

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

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

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

AOL: Slightly More Complex Considerations

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

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

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

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

AOL: Slightly More Subtle Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

AOL the Temptress

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

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

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

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

Issues That Worsen or Invoke AOL

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

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

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

AOL from Target Pools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using AOL Notation During Session

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Matters About Annotating AOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Viewers and AOL

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

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

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

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

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

When it’s Data, it’s not AOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercises to Improve AOL Avoidance & Handling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Point of it All

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

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

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

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

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

– PJ

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

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 06 May 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 05 May 2007

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

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

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

***

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

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

The target archetype, however, disagreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I sat staring into space for a little bit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to practical things now.