Palyne

TKR’s latest and coolest video yet: remote viewing an anomaly on Mars.

Another awesome video from LDigges based on the TKR Remote Viewing stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG_Rtu-pS7A

Is this groovy or what? These videos just get more impressive with every one. This is the second video this month from the TKR Remote Viewing project:

That’s a smaller low-res youtube version above. Link below has a quality version and a high-res version and screenshots. Tell the motion graphics maker what you think, there’s a thread on the RV forum, or a comment function at youtube.

REMOTE VIEWING FOR REMOTE VIEWERS
THE TKR PROJECT
EVERYTHING REMOTE VIEWING …
…IS RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES
http://www.dojopsi.com/rvexpo/TKRProject/

This is post 2 in a series. [Post 1: Introduction]

Note: Some of these essays will be ‘general’ and some ’specific’. This is one of the more general ones in terms of application to the viewer. It is important to the larger context of RV and viewers; and, to some degree of viewer understanding; and hence their development; as well as their eventual real-world situation handling. And, it ties into others in this series.

How to Ruin A Viewer, Part 1: Claim that decades of science supports something it doesn’t at all, and in some cases totally contradicts; while implying that Guru(s) X is validated-by-proxy as a result of that claim; while simultaneously invalidating a few of the most fundamentally important elements of what constitutes ‘Remote Viewing’ in the first place.

 
False-advertising about science under the label of ‘Remote Viewing’ has been out of hand for a dozen years now. It used to be far more egregarious than it is now, though. Around 1997, under the influence of reading the science and meeting some of the actual people from the science side of the subject, I started publicly talking about the misinformation I felt I’d been indoctrinated with in my view via commercial psi-methods experts, and about the iceberg of relevent info my experts obviously didn’t know (or want to know). Gradually over the years this public rebuttal on the internet by me and others has led to more conservative and more ‘carefully refined’ advertising. By some, anyway.

Decades of remote viewing science support mostly this one thing: “science.”

To a vastly lesser but still important degree, it also supports [in my words]:

“Free response psychic functioning, as performed within a {science-based} remote viewing protocol, consistently violating chance probability {and hence falling under the warehouse/umbrella term of ‘psi’, which we actually don’t know a damn thing about except that by definition it is that-thing-we-don’t-know-about-yet, and which as semantics probably carries enough ‘assumptive baggage’ to make merely using the term inaccurate given our limited understanding, but we haven’t another word for this phenomenon yet mostly due to that same limited understanding}.”

Science does not “validate” any psychic method, such as XRV sold for big-bucks on the radio and internet. In fact what research has been done in this area mostly supports that [in my words]:

“It depends, and it varies, and all other things being equal, the viewer matters much more than the method, and what’s best for that viewer as far as method goes is totally individual, both to the type of data sought {eg the reason for the viewing}, and to the personality of the viewer.”

Science does not support anything done outside a legitimate set of science-based controls, EVER. So if a method is taught without the science protocol it is quite literally the polar opposite of anything validated by science. If the method is taught and pointedly done so in a way to invalidate the protocol, it is probably one of the most destructive ‘training’ scenarios possible, ranging from ‘chutzpah’ to ‘fraud’ to ‘indoctrination with disinformation’.

There are other things science has demonstrated related to remote viewing, some trivial, some of great import, but more work (funding) is needed for nearly everything.

Science and Measuring “Psi”

It can be fairly noted that the science lab itself by its nature puts a somewhat limited version of psi on trial. For example you can measure accuracy many different ways, but there is no way to measure the true, genuine probability ratio of pulling an accurate detailed sketch out of a hat the size of “the world”.

Science forms of measure cannot touch many other elements, formats or variants of apparent-psi in our world, including all spontaneous psi no matter how detailed. Not to mention that measuring ‘a sketch’ compared to ‘a word’ is vastly more difficult to put a number on, without implementing measuring approaches that have to just change the framework entirely, in order to make judging possible at all.

In some respects science with psi is in the position of “looking for the keys a block from where they were dropped because the light is better there”. So science certainly has limits in this subject I will agree. But if anything that should only lend to our being more conservative about claiming what science “supports” in the psi area — not less.

Science and Commercial Remote Viewing

Science as promoted in public and commercial RV is misused as a marketing gimmick to make claims about someone’s saleable product/service, which is usually outright false advertising if not fraud.

(Some of the scientists ‘associated’ with laymen in public/commercial RV are recruited to hang out for pretty much the same reason: sales benefit from “credibility by proxy.” The scientists in my opinion {or wishful thinking} would be pickier if there were more options for legit science and funding in the field. When options are close to none, criteria on what to support for any-hope-is-better-than-none, changes a little.)

Remote Viewing science may “indirectly” support some elements that are found within one or more psychic methods, simply by nature of viewers having used those various processes and performed adequately repeatedly under controls, or by nature of certain “trends, tendencies, etc.” being clearly visible over the years within psychic functioning as an observed process. But parapsychology (–gosh, I really dislike that label and wish they’d get a better one…) does not directly support anything sold for money aside from peer-reviewed journals in that field (and frankly even that is debateable sometimes).

Anybody claiming otherwise is lying. Alternatively and in their defense, they may just be too stupid to think clearly enough to separate their woo-woo wishing or personal near-religious doctrine-of-psi-method from legitimate science.

Remote Viewing vs. Psychic

Science is what makes RV different from “just psychic”. Screw that up and you’re not only ‘just psychic’ and being a “poser” claiming to be a viewer, but you’re also helping publicly ruin the one chance that psi has ever had in our culture to be taken seriously and used appropriately.

Science is RV’s greatest strength, and is a critical part of the fundamental definition of the official label “remote viewing.” As far as I’m concerned anybody who invalidates science in this role publicly or privately to others is destructive to remote viewing as a field, and to viewers individually and en masse by their influence.

Important Addendums

1. I am not a scientist. Please see Cognitive Sciences Laboratory for real Remote Viewing science information.

2. For a general overview of remote viewing in science, one of the best papers ever is Dr. Jessica Utts’s paper “Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology,” which is free online. The commentaries are kind of humorous but worthwhile especially since they resulted in her ability to say more as rebuttal.

That paper itself (with the others) is here:
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/%7Eutts/91rmp.html
A small collection of parapsychology papers is here:
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/psipapers.html

3. Bear in mind while reading the above-mentioned paper that the “psi method” for “Ganzfeld” RV is basically lying back with audio/visual dulled/tranced by artifacts (eye coverings, red light and white noise) and speaking the data. Couldn’t be any more different than most psi methods as taught for RV today! So, put in context with this essay:

The meta-analysis paper “statistically recognizing a greater-than-chance accuracy-effect as-psi” could fairly be said to directly support “the existence of psi” (or “an effect we choose to label with that term, for now”). Also, it supports that said “psi is capable of being demonstrated under controlled conditions within a Ganzfeld protocol {which contains as part of its definition a specific altered-state, verbally communicated, psychic methodology}.”

Critical thinking should make it clear however that:
1 – This provides no statement on the Ganzfeld protocol ‘as compared to’ any other approach.
2 – If humans are innately psi, they might demonstrate it under many/any/most approaches.
3 – This meta-analysis, as well as the research on which it is founded, cannot be used to ‘validate’ any other (non-Ganzfeld) psychic methodology sold “as” Remote Viewing today.

It is still quite interesting–even for those whose primary interest IS in some other psi methodology.

PJ

A brief recap on ‘Remote Viewing’ for new folks

Remote Viewing is free-response psychic functioning as performed within an RV protocol. That protocol is science-based and at a minimum, requires pre-planning, a double-blind environment, and comparison of the data to valid feedback.

Free response means you can say ‘anything’ as your ‘data’ and are not limited to certain choices.

Feedback is not required for the psychic part to happen (you can view future events, for example, or ‘unknown’ things), but only for verifying whether or not it was psychic (was accurate).

The RV protocol itself is not about the psi but about preventing everything else that is not psychic from polluting the process and causing or allowing confusion, error, other forms of non-psi info, or fraud.

So in summary, RV is “a combined art and science” with the art being the psi process and the science being the RV protocol. Anything without a decent RV protocol is just ‘psychic work’ and anything without the psi is just science. Remote Viewing is, uniquely and rather beautifully, both.

A Brief Public History

A lot of people attempt to pass off what they sell or do as Remote Viewing. Its science protocol gave it more credibility than any approach to psi in history. It got a ton of publicity once upon a time and sometimes still. And… you have to admit, it sounds cool. The situation is so extreme that at this point, you have to doubt anybody talking about RV until you understand how they’re going about things, because it’s more the norm than the exception for the term to be misused. In the case of individuals, that’s usually by accident and ignorance. (They interpret it literally: they ’see’ something that is ‘remote’.) In the case of people selling something, it’s usually intentional.

In the public, psychic methods are often sold “as” RV, as if that particular method is somehow the definition of the phrase. The method for ‘psychic process’ is part of the ‘art’–an optional part, mind you, which has infinite variation, you can do whatever you like or nothing special at all–and has nothing to do with the ’science’ part of the equation the method is done “within”–without that science protocol, no matter what method is used, it isn’t RV at all. You don’t need training to “do” remote viewing.

As part of the psychic method ‘education’, a ton of basic information about remote viewing as a subject is not included. (Rather like teaching someone to build a house but neglecting to mention anything about foundation, with the excuse that you didn’t actually say you were teaching ‘foundations’ so it’s not your fault if their house crumbles later.) The actual RV protocol is often avoided if not literally educated against.

The psychic method is referred to as “the RV protocols” — just to make sure the public is totally confused. That way, when scientists refer to “a Remote Viewing protocol” and psychic method sellers say “we teach the RV protocols!”, the public will be too ignorant to know they aren’t talking about the same thing at all. Better still, then folks can claim their psychic method has ‘legitimacy’ based on decades of lab science for RV — which has nothing to do with their method. Ironic, even false advertising, but that’s just the way it is.

Approaches to Remote Viewing

After a dozen years of insane numbers of people “taught RV” by those standards, we have almost nobody publicly doing it well. The very few who do on the internet, as an amazing coincidence, generally taught themselves. That seemed rather… well, just odd, until a viewers today looked back at history and the people who had most demonstrated ability, the famous ones like Pat Price, Joe McMoneagle, Hella Hammid, and we realized that all the best viewers for the most part approach RV completely differently than the alleged “way it must be done” as promoted ad nauseum and officially “taught” by former government people. In fact, even Ingo Swann, the guy credited with (or blamed for) the psychic method most people sell “as” RV, uses a drastically different approach for psi himself according to his own writings.

Well. That just makes you go “Hmmmn.” What does it mean?

It’s been a dozen years now, and the more “former government intelligence people ‘teach RV’ to the public”, the less danger the public poses to any real government intelligence secrets.

Kinda funny! I bet someone in the CIA probably thinks that worked out just perfectly. Heck, they couldn’t have planned it that well. Or… maybe someone could have. Maybe we should have seen this coming, like some RV version of ‘The Great Rock & Roll Scandal’: packaged well and oh-so-popular!

Up close, if we look at the situations that psychic methods ‘called RV’ are and have been taught within, we realize that every skeptic, scoffer, sociologist, and critical psychologist would be keeling over with outrage about the amount of subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, “psychological manipulation” that goes on as part of this. Some of this is just human nature of course–psi has always been a field rife with “personality cults”. Some might be more insidious or deliberate. In a way it doesn’t really matter; it is what it is, for the student experiencing that, regardless of the motive behind it all. Skeptics and others aren’t involved, so they don’t know about it and as a result, aren’t talking about it. Whew! The status quo for RV Experts and Sales are still safe.

About as safe as all those secrets continue to be.

How to Build a Better Viewer

Everybody has a different idea about what best helps, builds or develops a viewer. The RV field has so much claim to the answer on how to breed viewers that you’d think we’d have thousands of nearly-omniscient amazing viewers by now, running around predicting every major world event, helping the police with their constant mysteries, and solving those pesky “missing nukes” targets for Generals on both sides of the sea.

I guess it’s no surprise that new folks to the field may find it a little difficult to know what matters, who to take seriously, etc. I often hear from people asking for some kind of guidance on this. The problem is, it’s difficult to give a pointer to some guru who can teach them a psychic method (which is usually what they want, because they’ve been misindoctrinated to believe that IS remote viewing), when I don’t have a lot of faith in most of those designated (by themselves or others) as authorities in this subject.

Everyone is psi; it’s innate to the species. Much of what we choose to “do” as a process in psi, a psychic method, may be less an issue of what ‘makes’ us psychic–we already are!–as what ‘does the least harm’ to forking it out of ourselves. You could make up a new Hokey-Pokey dance on the spot and tell people to use it for getting psychic information and chances are, they would–to varying degrees. The more they believed in it, the more convincing the seller, the presentation, if there was a group involved for hype, and of course if it cost a lot, the more likely it would work at least somewhat, just because they expect it to.

This does not say much about the method or the person teaching it except that at least the combination didn’t manage to completely prevent psi demonstration in someone who had plenty of psi already. Whether something more positive can be said about the method or the teacher is another story; experience lets each viewer make that decision for themselves — but usually not wisely until much later. Up front, when first introduced to RV, absolutely everything seems amazing.

You’ve heard the joke about the salesman so slick he could sell ice cubes to eskimos. Remote Viewing training is almost a version of that. People are already psi and can demonstrate it in nearly any free response format (but usually not well enough to convince a separate serious-skeptic, admittedly; but, usually well enough to convince the viewer, even if they were a skeptic themselves until then). So it’s easy money. Give them a format, buncha hype, special expert, all kinds of hypnotic-modality props and situation–the same dynamics you need for a great sales meeting or religious revival–then charge them a few grand for it. They’ll be happy to pay, since they’ll promptly believe their demonstrating psi means the current format and its evangelist are chiefly responsible for it. We sell Eskimos snowcones, too!

A Little Walk on the Dark Side

It occurred to me earlier today that with all the bright ideas for engineering omniscience, what new people trying to understand what (or who) might be good vs. bad for them might find useful isn’t just another version of “how [check one person/method] can make a viewer out of you”, but actually, the very opposite. I think things would become more clear if people had an outline of what will actually do them harm.

Then instead of merely comparing the stories of “who can brag the best” they could actually look at how people offering remote viewing advice or training operate, and consider what you might call the darker side of the equation.

If this ends up sounding like a small treatise from the real world on ‘cult psychology’, ‘hypnotic modalities’, ’social power politics’, ‘marketing’, ’strategic deception’, and just sheer chutzpah people make money and ego from while messing with the heads of vulnerable wanna-be viewers from the public, I’m sure that’s just an amazing coincidence. After all, I’m not naming names. You’ll have to figure it out yourself.

Some people feel this situation isn’t arranged by accident. Some feel the fact that these things are often implemented by former military intelligence personnel is not coincidence. But that’s a ‘conspiracy’ angle, I merely mention that it exists. All I’m trying to show you here is what to look for.

If you see someone employing these strategies, it’s for them, not for you. It will work against your successful long term independent viewing. Now, you can believe me or not, but at least if you read this, you will have had a chance for another perspective. Make your own decisions accordingly.

I’m glad I hit the field in ‘95 and got to SEE it change — monthly, even daily, sometimes even hourly! — I’m glad I had the chance to see the reinvention of history, ‘adjustment’ of public presentations and more, because I can’t imagine how anybody in the present is supposed to figure out what’s going on, when all you see is the shiny, rehearsed, revised version that exists today.

I know it’s confusing how so many people claim to be experts. I sympathize with that. So if it’s difficult to decide what would be best for you, because there are so many options vying for your attention, then at least consider what would be worst for you. That matters too.

How to Ruin A Viewer, A Series

Down to business: Over the next week or two we’ll be covering some practices in the remote viewing field, more accurately described (but less often advertised) as “How to Ruin A Viewer.”

That’s right, it doesn’t matter how much “innate to the species natural psi” that guy walks in the door with, it doesn’t matter how promising he might be, it doesn’t matter how serious about remote viewing he may be–in fact we can use any intensity against him if we’re crafty–we can play the subtle and not so subtle things right and we’ll have yet another guy who will be bonded to our guru, an evangelist and defender of our faith and our leader, but no threat at all as a viewer.

Oh sure, we’ll arrange for coddled, often artificial and ‘creative’ formats that make him SEEM like a good viewer, and we’ll use his legitimately natural psi to prop up our method and guru rather than his own sense of self. We’ll ensure his ability to ever go forth on his own competently is nipped in the bud.

We won’t have to worry about him showing up in public with our ‘expert method’ and making us look bad, because he won’t have the courage to actually ‘Go View!’ in a legit RV protocol in public. If he has to actually remote view in a situation designed to require psi–it’ll be pretty different for him. But he could be more couragous than the average bear, so we should plan for that…

We’ll make sure we never mention or have mentioned in our area, places on the internet where others view, so he doesn’t get any bright ideas, or see other people without our cosmic certification doing better than he does after all this time or money. We’ll make sure he’s set as enemy in advance to anybody we know is likely to lead him into temptation and actual viewing that might make our tactics clear. We’ll teach him that it’s unreasonable for anybody to expect him to actually demonstrate psi with our method, and that he should be offended if anybody even asks. Asking for actual viewing… even just for fun… why, of all the nerve!

If he isn’t showing off what we do in the real world, and he isn’t ever good enough to compete with much of anybody, let alone our guru (who of course will not demonstrate it in legit protocol either), then our position is safe! Really, this is a win-win kind of plan.

The cool thing is, our tactics are cleverly designed to work not only now, but in the future. He’ll already be in a whole list of psychological binds. Merely questioning what we tell him will cause serious cognitive dissonance. Sometimes people do begin to question things, but blessedly the CD situation causes people to just leave the topic and field entirely. So, ok, they’re no more use to our income or ego but on the other hand they’re not hanging around griping either, so it works out alright. As long as he’s not saying anything publicly we’re in the clear.

As for skill, don’t worry: we’ll give him a certificate that states he is a PROFESSIONAL. (Or maybe we’ll tell him we’ll give him one as soon as he learns the other big secrets which, of course, are never ending and/or never going to manifest.) I like the certificate idea best. Then if he happens to meet someone who says, “Wow, I’ve been into remote viewing for years myself!” he can say, “Do you have a certificate from Guru/Company X?” and if they don’t, well, we’ll make sure he knows that nothing they say about RV matters past that point, no sir!

Don’t think this is just mercenary. Really, this is almost downright altruism. People don’t really want to develop as viewers. It’s incredibly hard work. It makes you realize you’re some odd creature nobody understands and you can’t talk to almost anybody about the reality of it–it’s socially separating in a profound way. And it’s such a long-term effort. Nobody should have to suffer all that!

We know that most people in the public just want to fork over money to follow someone bold and be part of something in a group and feel cool for one reason or another–and be able to talk about it on the internet. So, we’re here to help!

In the next few posts I will outline our Evil Plan.

PJ

One of the things that is most difficult in any psychic work is highly “specific” data–on command. We get specific data by seeming near-random or talent-based chance. We get generalized data all over the place. But when the question is highly specific: “What is the street number of the address?” “What is the name of the company?” usually it’s not expected the viewer will get that.

What is really the difference between a color (’orange’) and a number (’four’) and a name (’John’)? They are all just words. Usually numbers are considered “abstracts”, and allegedly this is why most people can’t remote view them worth a damn. But ‘four’ — whether as a number or as a quantity — is not really that much more abstract than the word ‘orange’, which is only representational, or the word ‘John’, which is also representational. Words are only markers, labels, so why should it be harder to do one group than others? Psychics get specifics all the time. Not predictably alas, but plenty often. Read the rest of this entry »

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. 03 May 2007

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

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

ViewingWriting - fiction, as well as psi-related non-fictionTaking in and Presenting projects for viewing (PM for Apps)Arranging practice/development regimens for viewersPMing software development for viewing/dowsingTalking to police/investigators about viewingTalking to the media and others about viewingManaging protocol projects for predictive viewing

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

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

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

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

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

“What drives me? Something obviously drives me after 12 years of obsession. What is it?”

I didn’t know. I finally moved it to the back part of my brain and went on with my life.

o0o

A day or two later I was doing some ARV sessions (these are very short). I don’t normally use archetype RV with these because 10-20 minutes of lead-in time for a 5 minute session seems a bit like overkill frankly. But I felt like it so I did with one of them. Mostly it was fun because of Inner Guide, or IG for short, whom I adore.

I finished the first session and began the archmed process for the second when it suddenly hit me.

I am a UNIVERSAL TRANSLATOR. That is my path. That is what moves me. That is what drives me. Feeds me. Calls me. Loves me.

I don’t want to “objectively know information.” I know that is the cool thing. I know that is the hip “intelligence soldiers use this” approach. I know that is the ‘controller’ perspective.

But it isn’t mine.

Screw objectivity. I want to share perception with the other.

o0o

Yes I know that “too much subjectivity can affect perception and bias communication”. So hey, if I’m working for someone else maybe I’ll take that into account. Maybe. Maybe there are benefits that make it worth it. But I don’t view for other people anyway. I don’t view for the cause of viewing. I view for me. For how it makes me feel inside.

I’ve shared ‘awareness’ with objects before. More than once. Even with a tornado in session. With other people, both spontaneously and in session. With a whole environ.

“Shared perception” is what I’ve dubbed an “Identity Interference Factor” or IIF for short (how I love acronyms): it is one of the experiential aspects of remote viewing that I consider most “destabilizing” in its side- and after- effects.

o0o

I probably shouldn’t blog after watching ‘Heroes’ since it darkens my vision a bit. But I don’t think it changes. It just brings out a part of me that is normally buried behind long-suffering optimism.

Conscious psi by nature is destabilizing. You cannot change the most fundamental belief systems about reality and have it be no big deal. Remote Viewing, just like psychic work and magical exploration since the dawn of time, leaves more lunacy in its path than any other notable effect. From the chronic paranoia that low-level effects seem to spark in people, to serious problems distinguishing truth and reality and identity.

We all thought RV would make us omniscient. Once upon a time. Yet almost nobody stays with it, statistically. And of those who do, a disproportionate number eventually demonstrate they are at least half mad. At least.

Identity Interference Factors rock the boat of sanity. On the bright side, most people are more spared by their lack of serious talent than the lack of conscious psi’s real results.

I believe I can…. ‘adapt’. Will I be the same person after deliberately seeking out archetypal-level connection with all my targets? No. I am not the same after every target I do. I believe I have a guiding principle, in Inner Guide, in Archangel Michael, in intent, that will shape what I call me for the better over time.

Everyone changes. Some just change more quickly, and more profoundly, than others.

o0o

Identity. Perspective. A shift in perspective is the one thing that is most deeply rooted in me, even in experiences long prior to ever hearing of RV. That novelty rocks my world, feeds my soul, and gives me a kind of primal, soul-centered excitement that is almost too much to bear…. and ineffable.

That’s what drives me. That’s what I love the most. That’s what I crave when I start really viewing consistently. That’s what wakes the fire inside me.

I want to merge. I want to share perspective. I want to feel it inside me. It’s sex of the spirit. It’s recognizing and validating the parts of my innermost self, my energy that ARE what I perceive as a reflection in my outside world.

o0o

So I was right. My list was boring. It didn’t have “me” in it. It didn’t have the core of energy that pulls me to viewing like an astral love affair. It was just plans, and logic, and words on paper. That isn’t what RV is to me.

For a dozen years I’ve shied away from viewing when I started getting deep. I’ve run from the time it demands, from the obsession and “driven” qualities that I always have but it seems to invoke at deeper levels, and from the severe lack of giving-a-damn that it always brought for my interest in helping others and the field at large. I’ve been more good to RV while barely viewing, I have felt.

Maybe I don’t care so much anymore. I’m coming around to a change in that perspective. In that interest in much beyond my own development. Maybe it’s the slight shifts that every target, touched that way, recognized as my inside, brings. Sometimes I think I am becoming something. A Me+, perhaps. It still feels like me. I still call it me. But it’s not the me I was yesterday or will be tomorrow. And maybe everybody has that experience. Maybe I’m the one who, because of my interest in ‘perspective’ and ‘identity’, notices it.

o0o

Long ago, Jung worked with archetypes. Scared the hell out of himself. Stated, and quite rightly, that it was so powerful it was literally dangerous. But since then, the ‘Inner Guide’ model came along. And that has always worked perfectly for me for archetype work. Even powerful, soul-shaking, mind-blowing experiences as sometimes occur during archetype work.

I use inner guide in sessions, with Archetype RV. And when I’m done I have him separate us. I keep my memory. I keep the slightly-larger me that results. I keep the feel, the taste, of the target. But I feel the separation, the slightly smaller-ness, when IG un-weaves us.

And that’s why I’m here. I didn’t know it until then. It all sort of hit me in a ROTE as Bob Monroe used to call them, like a huge realization, a whole ball of interrelated thought that “opens up and rolls out inside you”.

This is my motive.

This is who I am. I AM… everything.

A psychic library card. A universal translator.

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 25 February 2007

I found this ancient post I’d made one day on TKR and thought I should’ve blogged it instead. Better late than never.

Remote Viewing has a lot of terminology, but one of the most famous terms is THE MATRIX.

What is The Matrix?

It’s God’s Database, see, and you provide your target#, which has been psychically double-bound to your target like velcro duct tape within the matrix, via the tasker (by a process so confidential we’d have to shoot you if we told you, but bear in mind it’s illegal in 18 states and the UK and especially offensive to those of marvian Advanced Moral Standing).

Your target# as written on paper is rewritten into MSQL (Matrixian Structured Query Language, pronounced “pray” for short), and rendered in order of submission sequence to the quantum asynaptical process unit. The queuing process goes something like this:

{in a lovely, automated, sexy female Jetsons-like voice:}
Welcome to the Matrix Universal Akashic Repository System.
Please listen to our menu, as our options have changed!
Para habla guadacanal, kanji Brie.
For wandering blindly in the dark, please press 1.
For staring at the paper until your eyes water, please press 2.
For rolling excitedly through an amazing session that has no relation to your target, please press 3.
For small obscure furled-pieces of universally archetypal symbols condensed into the names of flowers, press 4.
To hear this menu again, please press the triangle button.
To exit this sytem without commitment, please say “Zzzzzzzz”.

HENCE your query finally makes sense to the Matrix, which is not to say it’s the correct question to begin with of course, but WHEREAS prayers don’t fit into a database any better than “soon” or “eventually” fit into date fields on spreadsheets, it is necessary that some basic coding and tweaking go on invisibly in the background—I’m sure you understand. At which point, having been de-rendered back into its original meaning before your puny little brain distorted it, the Matrix is asked:

SELECT * FROM MY_UNIVERSE
WHERE BEATPATTERN IN (0,1) AND
(PROBABILITY = ‘YES’ AND GULLIBILITY > 0) AND
TARGETID = 1983^12E8Z.123879ZZ123.67841-Q AND
(FOCUS LIKE ‘%USEFUL OR DESCRIPTIVE%’ OR
FOCUS IN (’LOST IN SPACE’,'OFF ON MARS’))
GROUP BY ‘C-S-T-Q-M-RV STAGE’
ORDER BY STRUCTUREPOINT

Finally after all that laborious work that is invisible to you (so now you know how amazing the universe truly is), the Matrix processes your MSQL request, and gives you back a response which can vary widely, such as

Exception 5200.718: Failure to complete socket.

You will know when you get this message by the way you realize you’ve been sitting there for 10 minutes with your eyes glazed over and there’s nothing on paper. Or:

Exception 198201.123: String Truncation Error

Which means that unbeknownst to you (since you’re double blind when viewing), you tried to ask a complex question such as “what is the psychological state of the target individual on June 16, 1982, at 1:00PM,” but the input was so oversized that it cannot be processed, and/or you hope it can’t be, because if it is, the Matrix will be required to give you a highly abbreviated, condensed but 100% totally accurate answer like:

Gouda.

And as you well know, without the Mondo Super Psychic Demon Decryption Ring Of Darkness — which costs more than money, if ya know what I mean — you will not be able to “unfurl” this decrypted message. Alternatively, the Matrix may return a message such as:

Exception 1237.19 Queryparam invalid binding

which as everyone knows, means that your tasker failed to do the proper left-ankle massage prior to meditating and/or only meditated for 14.5 minutes instead of the full 15 when binding your task# to the target in the Matrix, setting up a whole slew of cascade failures that you cannot possibly be held responsible for as a viewer. Should you have any session that fails to reveal sufficient omniscience (which method Q^Z-RV totally ensures), you can be certain that somewhere along the line, it is all the tasker’s fault.

(Should you be unable to blame the tasker for social reasons, simply note that your task ID consists of characters which have surely seen each other before at some point in the history of time, and you are totally accurate about what you perceived, but it makes perfect sense that you are perceiving a metallic mold from a donut shop in Pompeii rather than the target of today. I mean, time has no meaning, and someone else obviously already used that number, so what can be expected?)

But of course those are only occasional glitches, and usually the Matrix is much more forthcoming. At double the speed of light, dating back in time to before the tasker was even conceived of by their ancestors, the answer to your query will be beamed into your local universe. You will know this has happened because:

a – the squirrels aka tree rats in your backyard will immediately begin discussing the more profound implications of childhood Eriksonian autonomy phase interruption and how this has clearly affected the psychology of your target. Your inability to understand a perfectly clear conversation as anything more than “squeak squish chirp click” is of course your responsibility, not the Matrix’s.

b – your hand will make a small, slightly complex, irregular, completely indecipherable scribble on your page known as “scribblograms”, an advanced technology used by many but first explored by Fred “The Toad”, viewer par exquisiscribbloinaire, a Guam researcher who wrote all about this last millennia, on the charming but politically cranially-recursive land of laSheba Oui. Every aspect of the question your task posed, including symbolic, allegorical, circumstantial, relational, conceptual, and descriptive, will be encompassed in this scribble, as well as the individual’s medical profile, FBI file contents, and his thoughts about lunch that day.

If this is not perfectly obvious when seeing the scribble — right there plain as day in front of you, after all, sheesh — it is simply that you have spent an insufficient amount of time practicing that scribblogram in different sized little boxes, and/or you have clearly not been working with the Buchanabilly Ultra Audio Matrixian Scribbliomatic Generator, which all serious viewers really ought to have. (Will someone nice please share a modern copy with me because my version dates from 1912 and worked well on my abacus but does not work on Windows XP.)

Should this not resolve your decryption woes, I recommend you purchase all 17 DVDs for Stage 81.29B, which specifically deal with this issue, as presented by Corporal I.M. Ferengi, who trains bylliuns and bylliuns of viewers to be better than anything the government ever had, all of which would be predicting major world events months in advance within a +/- 10 second range, except that unfortunately they are all busy laboring on the supersecret Cheese Of Doom project under Mount Baldy, so not even one of them is available for demonstrable public examples. I’m sure anybody reasonable would understand. I mean we’re talking the CHEESE of DOOM here people. Get your priorities straight.

Please bear in mind that the asynaptic quantumly connected triple-redundant consciousness loop between you and the Matrix is subject to the slightest shift of attention during your process. Your answer may change literally as you get it, if you lose clarity of focus during the process. If this should occur, I recommend the cartoon poster of the infamous I.M.F. as well as the full CD-ROM package of stage 166.5 (version IV of that module) which has inspired several underpaid customer service representatives of the CD mfg & sa
les company to come onto I.M.F.’s website under 412 names each and wax poetic about its amazing effectiveness.

Should you have any further questions regarding the Matrix, look for my 872-page hardbound book “Brief Readings Regarding the Scribbliograms of Time,” in which I go into this subject and make several predictions of the future, including the year 2021 alien-cloning of George Z. Bush the 6th (May He Live Forever) (which btw I predict will be a total failure, since clearly, his ancestors were Replacements to begin with, and you know what a 6th generation copy looks like! all crooked and fuzzy!). I even reveal secrets about daily life in the year 4914, when 3000 years of “etcetera” will have left us with a polite little Earth Society of 214 people living in domes. (Don’t ask what happened to everybody else.)

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 07 May 2006

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

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

1. Personalization as a mental-technology tool of humans;
2. Psychological response and constant re-adjustment to viewing; and
3. Using A to deal with B.

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

Personalization.

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

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

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

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

Fear of Psi.

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

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

Barriers of Exclusion

When we start remote viewing, we instantly start breaking down the barriers of ‘exclusion’. Our “won’t” list starts to dissolve.

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

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

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

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

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 04 April 2006

I was looking through my overdue-for-reply email folders and thinking about the amount of time I have spent writing email on the internet since 1993 when USENET and Compuserve sucked me into The Dark Screen, as I call the addicting aspect of the internet.

It is fair to say that I could have written at least a dozen novels during this time. Got a black belt in a martial art or two. Finished my degree and got another. Or, since late 1995, done something really significant with my viewing, rather than having almost no time for it and when I did, inconsistently.

I don’t think I regret it. I’m a weird combo of an introvert by deepest nature, life-trained to be an extrovert. Which means I act extroverted around people, the more people the moreso, but when left alone I lurk in solitude happily. So email has been my outlet, my inlet, and my doorway to the best friends I have ever had.

RV Online

I first met the online world with RV stuff in late ‘95, although most was in CompuServe then, as the www was barely existent and the average person had never heard of a search engine. As ‘06 wore on I did more and more online as the web grew and RV grew with it. In fact, since the StarGate program was declassified in Sep95 I can almost track the ‘public growth/awareness’ of RV with that of the world wide web.

By late ‘97 I was massively burned out on the ‘online social’ aspect of RV–mostly for time and politics reasons–and I officially left the field for almost four years on July 4, 1998. Yet when I returned in ‘02 to the field, it was as if I’d never been gone. Not a lot changed. The methods people were still battling it out, people were still fighting for recognition to use no-method or one not Swann-derived, and if it wasn’t some bozo claiming to be a gov’t viewer (and changing or growing stories daily) it was some bozo selling something (if not a video on how the world is ending Any Day Now™, you can buy a Psychic Sex Crystal that looks suspicious like an adults-only novelty item).

About the only diff was that CRV, in part a monster of my making on the internet I realized, had become The Establishment. Which was novel, given the massive marketing done by Dames and his legions to kill it previously. But by then I was in a different space. I’m still working off web karma to bring things into balance, despite that doesn’t endear me to CRV folks who feel I betray the methods-ideals for which I used to be the poster child. On the other hand, I burned most my bridges there already anyway. C’est la vie.

The various former StarGate guys, aside from Joe who is my friend, are friendly because that is their gift as intell men and likely because I have web media in a field they’re working to make a living in. We’re friendly to each other. But I suspect if I were relying on them to save me from a dragon out of sheer appreciation, the lot of their love combined would likely end with me toasted by morning.

There you go. I’m the devil they know.

The Old Neighborhood

There are quite a few people that I knew online in ‘96 and ‘97 who are still in the online field. Some came in through a methods doorway and some are independents. Some were more UFOlogists with an interest in RV, and some were always sort of on the outside with RV as an interest not a pursuit. Some got sucked into one semi cult or another. For the most part though I’m glad to say that many of the folks I was around in 1997 are still around.

It feels like I’ve known them forever. Rich and Liz and Vance and Daz and Gene and Shelia and Dave and Glyn and Bill and I could go on with names for several paragraphs and still leave people out. Except a couple I’ve never met them and many I don’t even email with much if at all anymore. But I’ve known these people for ten years! Ye gods! I accept them for what they are, whatever the areas where we diverge. I feel a bond with them difficult to explain. It’s not even that all of us are friends. It’s more like… they’re my extended family by now.

Funny enough, a few of my un-fave folks are still around as well, and like the bonehead uncle who married into the family… they’re extended family too. For me, the “RV Online” field has become almost like the old neighborhood. I suspect the stunning rate of change on the internet creates an interesting psychosocial effect similar to travel. You know those great sayings about how the person you wouldn’t speak to at home is hailed as your best buddy when you’re on the other side of the planet in a foreign land. There’s a parallel in online RV: I’ve developed an almost-affection even for my seeming enemies.

You might still hold the same opinion and say so. But you lose the energy for having any real emotion behind it. It may be true that so-and-so is a jerk you’ve had 17 major fights with over the years and if he shows his reptilian head again you’ll throw rocks at it. But it’s not even really personal anymore. It’s just what you do. She or he’s a jerk, but he’s your jerk. It’s like in little ethnic neighborhoods or something. He’s from the old town, and his sister married my cousin Tony and one of his kids went to college with my nephew. He may be an SOB but you know him well. Familiarity bred contempt but yet-more familiarity bred comfort. Now, he’s the devil you know.

TKR is great because it mixes the old and the new, although in the Galleries (aside from the Window Gallery) it’s mostly new viewers… those who don’t yet have so much ego invested they’re afraid to fail in front of others. I like meeting new people and there needs to be a place for new people. But sometimes it seems lonely. New folks don’t have that history with me. That comfort. They’re welcome-intruders in a city that is not really theirs, not in the eyes of the homeboys anyway, at least not until they’ve put in a significant block of history of their own, with the people, with the locale.

I don’t trust them to stay around yet. To be in it for the long haul. They have yet to go through the illusions and delusions and disillusions and come out the other side still dedicated to RV even when everything in its little world seems to let you down.

Everything but what feeds you. Everything but the viewing.

Viewing…

The first and last lesson of RV online is that the only truly decent part of the field of RV is the practice of Remote Viewing. Of course, it sucks you in like The Dark Screen of the internet. Remote Viewing is The Dark Screen of the Soul. It tempts you and feeds you until you need it. ‘Til you breathe it. ‘Til it doesn’t matter what the often bizarre details or problem people or paranormal side effects might be, because viewing is now a part of you. You need to feel that part of you, it’s what makes you alive.

You know I love it. Some days I think I hate it. It delights me, infuriates me, rocks me, confuses me, drives me, frightens me, and calls me home with that deep longing only a session with my soul can quench.

For sure… it’s the devil I know.