Palyne

I tasked this week’s mission over at TKR that closed earlier this evening.

Tasker Instructions: Relax and let yourself describe whatever you feel about this target.

All work is in a doubleblind in TKR. I considered whether to have that instruction, but decided it really didn’t give away anything at all about even the nature of the target, only encouraged viewers to go with their less physical-fact feelings which is hard for some, so I thought encouragement was in order.

Tasker Directive & Feedback was: Describe the experience of a human woman giving birth to a baby. Describe it from a first-person (personal) perspective if possible.

Additional tasker notes at feedback were: You are welcome to seek out verbal, written or visual information about this experience as additional feedback. I put that in because some people really like specific feedback and I figured that way if they wanted to hunt some down they could.

I really loved how this went — loved the sessions. From fairly objective descriptions of some of the biological detail, to emotional and other details in there. It was an archetypal tasking, so there is no ’specific’ feedback aside from what is common to nearly all women having babies, but there’s enough to think that the viewers did a really fab job. Some info is funny even (one viewer was downright grossed out by something slimy inside a body), and some is really rather touching… some is intriguing, as well.

I wondered how the men would do. One seemed to get symbolic data, one seemed to objectify it a little bit, and the other was neck-deep in target contact — they all did well in different ways. The sessions are at TKR at the Dojo Psi — http://www.dojopsi.com/tkr/index.cfm?M=1 gets you right to the missions page.

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 »

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

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

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. 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. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

o0o

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

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

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

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

But it isn’t mine.

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

o0o

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

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

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

o0o

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

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

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

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

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

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

o0o

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

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

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

o0o

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

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

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

o0o

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

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

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

This is my motive.

This is who I am. I AM… everything.

A psychic library card. A universal translator.

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 25 February 2007

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

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

What is The Matrix?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exception 5200.718: Failure to complete socket.

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

Exception 198201.123: String Truncation Error

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

Gouda.

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

Exception 1237.19 Queryparam invalid binding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 05 July 2006

I’d like to blog a bit more about the idea, function and purpose of what I call remote viewing “presentation sessions.”

First, let’s point out that the concept on its own isn’t novel. In CRV and its various method derivatives, the session summary at the end of the session is, depending on your trainer and/or method, a “light” form of this. Some trainers request it simply summarize the data in the session. Others, allowing that at the end of the session when the summary is done the viewer is assumed to be in “better target contact,” will let the viewer emphasize or de-emphasize information from the session, when doing the summary. This ranges, depending on the trainer, in degree: some let you actually “add and remove” data as well. However, it is still just a summary—it is paragraph form. It’s a small thing tacked onto the end of the session.

A presentation session is a whole second psi-based product. I believe that in theory; perhaps if done well, if this itself became a skill; this product could be an improvement on the raw session (additional information, and better understanding of what info we already have).

Sharing Data with non-viewers: Session Issues

The people most likely to use RV data aren’t viewers, but people asking them for sessions. Unless it’s an RV project manager, these are the people least likely to know how to deal with the data as presented. On the internet, most session-sharing is done with the public.

There are a number of “issues” with raw remote viewing sessions when it comes to them being comprehensible for the public. The TKR Galleries have actually demonstrated some of these quite well, although anybody who works with a lot of other viewers would see them.

Novice Issues

For beginners, there are the primary problems of AOLs and focus. Let’s take Jane, a new viewer, as example. It does not matter whether she is trained in a formal method or not; the basics, you can hear/learn even online. Jane has been taught that she is supposed to write down everything that goes through her mind during the session process. She dutifully writes down everything. This results in a session that is quite a bit not about the target, in part because Jane’s mind is wandering like crazy, but also because Jane is still new to RV, so she really doesn’t have a grasp yet on what is so fleeting that it’s just unavoidable association (if we recorded every instance of that, it would be an endless word-association essay, not an RV session), vs. nebulous but still clear enough to count as data or at least AOL.

Also, Jane may be recording her process like a diary (and that’s ok), and if she is formally trained so she’s even got admonitions and acronyms to track every possible annoyance or event in her internal or external environments. When they get to the point of adding in all their active-AOL process (”…blue, blue-grey, or is it green? maybe tan. I don’t know. My sister just turned on the radio. It’s really hot in here. I think it’s brown actually. But then I guessed brown on the last session and was wrong… ok, I’ll say blue. Hard. Shiny…”) I want to bellow, JUST THE FACTS MA’AM! People reviewing sessions don’t want to know the viewer had an itch. They want to know about the target. Getting all that junk out of the way of what is presented can be good.

Then there is the issue that sometimes (especially method-trained new viewers) they AOL every damn thing—down to outright word-association strings—and even AOL half their actual data in their insecurity and fear of being wrong. This tends to result in viewers who, if the AOL is accurate, want to take credit for having hit on something, but if it’s inaccurate, they figure it doesn’t count because it’s AOL. Analytical overlay is in my view poorly misunderstood by many viewers in the field at large, and ends up with some simplistic cookie-cutter definition that might be helpful for a brief time just in the door, but after that is silly if not detrimental in its shallow interpretation.

So, between the three things above, a new viewer’s session can end up with a ton of stuff that is confusing, distracting or diffusing in their “raw” session. Learning to go through that and make a “clean version” has several educational benefits.

Other Issues

For more developed viewers, there are the primary issues of personal process and structured method.

For the method part of it, unless today I want to know more about CRV, I just don’t really care what they got in their long strings of stage 2’s or their matrix of stage 4 or whatever. What I really want to know is, “Tell me about the target.” Because THEY are the expert at their method, they are far better equipped to package that information for “public perusal” than the public at large is. I find it a pain to wade through handwritten columns on a ton of pages. Also, some session methods are so complicated that nobody who isn’t extensively trained in them could really make sense of them, and some even have some pages never shown in public sessions (as ‘method secrets’ or ‘working pages’). Seeing the original “raw data” can be confusing, or can even be incomplete to begin with in the latter case. A readable summary of the data, and the various sketches, is far more ideal as an end-product.

I realize that this process may leave out some data, if the viewer doesn’t feel, during the presentation session process, that 17 variations on the word “bright” really matter. If there are four pages of descriptives, my god, please don’t tell me—for reference, great to have, but for the main presentation, I want to know what is “important and relevent” about the target, not every possible microscopically accurate piece of information that could conceivably be applied to it. (As McMoneagle once said, Some viewers will provide pages of descriptive information that covers the details of a leather jacket and its zipper that the person in the target were wearing, and it’s “100% accurate!”; but really, what might be important is, “There is a man with a gun in his hand.”)

It isn’t that I am not interested in the raw data; depending on the viewer and session, sometimes I really am. It’s just that as far as public presentations go, I would like the viewer to be the one who, after the session-proper, provides the information in a readable format that at least partly makes sense to the average reader. Only the viewer is in the position to judge what is “most important and relevent” about a target—that’s the psi! But when you begin a session, you’re likely to get a little bit of everything. The viewer, at the end of the session when their target contact is better developed, can go back through the session and have a better feel for what really matters, what deserves emphasis, vs. what doesn’t. Same as with some method variants on the summary, except I’m talking about literally a whole reiteration-with-possible-revision of the session itself. Might they be wrong? Heck yeah! But learning to be right about this is what RV comes down to.

This is not analysis in session because it isn’t being done in session; it is a second psychic product that is based on the viewer’s own psi evaluation (the session-part-2) of the raw data (session-part-1). Done before feedback obviously; ideally, is done following the session, as an “extension” of it.

Personal Process

The other issue is personal process. First there is the psi process itself. I sometimes write down not just the data I get, but HOW I got the data. I have a ton of personal acronyms I use for things in some sessions that would not be understood by anybody else, and I don’t see why I should have to educate the whole world on my method in order to be able to have my viewing data understood. Allegedly, we the viewers are the experts on viewing (heh), and if anybody ought to be arranging a “presentation understandable to the public” of data, it oughtta be the viewer.

There are many different “kinds” of visuals, or ways to get them. There is even more than one way to “hear” stuff. Then there’s mini-movies as I call them, and seeming bi-lo moments, and in-body feelings, and ghost-body feelings, and thoughtballs, and so on. “How” I interpret something is going to depend, often, on how it comes across. I can tell you that if I see something with a “stark clarity that is realer than real” for a moment, it’s usually the target. Not just like the target. THE target. (For me this is more likely to happen with a single color than anything. For some people though, they get a whole visual.) If I simply see something like a picture, it is likely a memory-clip, that will be “best match” but alas, my mind uses concept, function, and other factors in its matching process, so it may or may not be a purely physical-match. If I see a visual that moves, or I see a clip of a person “acting out” something (an arm hands me something, a person strikes a pose, whatever), the first is “symbolic” and the second is “charadic” as I call it. If however I find myself “flying over” the target, and my vision is actually kind of fuzzy but is combined with a “gut feel and knowing,” then I usually trust that data as being totally literal. This is critical to the understanding of how your mind works and what data you are actually getting.

The mind uses all these different kinds of presentations just like verbally we use “inflection” to modify and even reverse meaning. So in session, I may often write down how something comes across, or some piece of that as a reference. The onlooking public has no idea if this is itself data, or what this might mean. Like some points of method, it can be more confusing than helpful to readers.

Private Data

Then there’s the issue of “private data.” I wouldn’t reveal highly personal data about an individual to the public, even if the individual was some dead public figure. I would want to record it, because the session record is first and foremost FOR ME. But that doesn’t mean I want to share it with the world. Once I see feedback, I can decide whether or not that information is appropriate to be shared. If this were science, we would provide raw data, and we would not be worried about issues like ethics or privacy because science would be targeting us mostly on basic physical, nicely judgeable, statistics-deriving sort of targets that would make us all die of boredom. If it were applications, well, we assume there’d be a project manager (PM) in place to make sure target were cool, and so, I feel the client is paying for raw data as well as presentation data (which because it is a psi product, is itself additional information, even if it’s only a slight revision in emphasis of the original data). But there is potentially private data of other sorts, such as spontaneous personal insights one may have during session, about their own life, or a friend.

All of those things are reasons why a “presentation session” is a useful thing. But there’s much more.

When I get data, much of the time I get far too much, too fast, to properly record. I can have half-second “experiences” that would take 15 minutes to really flesh out, and many of them per a 20 minute session. Even the time it takes to note whatever strikes me as most obvious, and doesn’t take longer than 5 seconds to write, may be a distraction of sorts—I have to shift into more of a left-brain state to do verbal data. Worse, if I’m still in good target contact, I’m probably an idiot about what I write down… I’m not left-brain enough, basically. If I don’t make this shift and take all the time I need to record something, then I have not accurately or well provided the data. If I do, I have probably trashed some degree of the rest of my session, because instead of staying in close target contact and letting it flow-in while I can, I had to turn my attention to the outflow of communication.

It literally becomes a process where the session-recording and the data-incoming are competition for each other. No matter which one you focus on, you lose some of the other, and despite the on-paper perfect-world assumption that we record “as” we get data, that’s an ad-hoc “try”—anybody experienced with this knows that there is a balance and a compromise here. Many people shy from method structures when they start feeling the structure is literally competing with the experience, and they are forced to give precedence to the experience instead, as the structure is designed to support that, not compete with that. In the early days or if not much data or not too fast, the structure can help lead you through it, but when you get plenty of data on your own and fast, it can be like a friction brake on the whole psychic process. But it isn’t just structure, it’s literally the act of having to write it all down.

When the future makes room for the present

Say I am sitting in session. I have a sudden flash of something, and then other data. I might not have time to write down all the details of my first flash. Further, because I’m in session, I may be really stupid about words, I often can’t think of the words I want to use for things when in session. I really only have time to write down some kind of basic reference to the data.

If I stop to write down a lot more, I’ve pulled away from target contact, and trying to get to the correct words often sends me far toward a more linear state of mind better for writing and worse for viewing. If I stay and obsess on that data point to flesh it out, I will find myself trying to decide ‘which part of it matters’ in order to make the decision about what to write down, and in the end, I will probably end up in AOL-land, or really hacked because I wrote down 4 aspects of something, but it was 2 others I didn’t mention that turned out to matter.

The most important thing is my target contact, continuing it and increasing it, so that it becomes as solid as possible by the end of the session.

When I tell myself that I am doing a presentation session afterward, I quit worrying about “which part of this ton of nested info I should be pulling out and writing down fast and moving on” because the decision is actually partly irrelevent: I will be going back through the session and then I can flesh out all of it if I want. Also, with the benefit of additional data and better target contact, what aspect of that ‘flash’ of nested info matters more than others, might be more clear. So I will have more data, more experience, more target contact, and yet probably a little better linear-state of mind than during the raw session, all of which can contribute to my “much fuller disclosure” of all the data available to me.

Because that’s really what it comes down to. In the first raw session I don’t have time to get down the “fullness and subtleties and context” of the data going by, and if I take the time I’m unlikely to maintain the kind of target contact that leads to an overall session being a good job. This especially goes for the “experiences” that are mini-movies, bilocations, aspect interaction, target interaction, etc. where one second can literally be an entire “experience”, not just “a data point.” It can literally be an entire page of narrative.

I have not done a ton of this, although I began this approach many years ago; I have seldom had time to view consistently and usually don’t have time for the extra step in session. But of all the presentation sessions I have done, I have never once had it NOT be a great improvement on the original session when it comes to being understood by others. Even the process of taking it out of a structure, typing it up so it’s readable (I scan sketches), getting rid of all the personal session comments that relate to process rather than data, can hugely improve the presentation of any session. But if you also have more detailed, better-stated information, that’s a genuine quality improvement of the best kind.

I think of it like a book. When we get a book, it does not have the extended margin size, the printer crop marks, extensive editorial scribbling on it, etc. That may be the “raw product” but since the product is being presented to others, there is a second, “presentation product” that is geared toward people just picking it up and reading it and having some clue what it means.

Granted, we don’t always have time, especially in practice, to put yet-more effort into each session. But on special occasions, I believe it’s worth the effort. I have learned as much about myself, my data, how I think, etc. in the process of making the presentation sessions, as anything else. I’m inclined to think that even if they were not used, the simple process of compiling them is itself a healthy process for the viewer. Give it a try!

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 03 July 2006

Darn I had fun on the HAARP Mission this week. (See it at TKR.)

When making my presentation session, there was some data I felt was less relevent. So I left it out. Later I realized that except a couple tiny silly AOL’s, nearly everything I left out was negative stuff. Which if I had felt differently, I probably could have geared the presentation session to seeming quite different. It was not intentional, and I didn’t know the target of course, but I’d be an idiot to pretend there is no psychology involved there.

So it’s got me thinking about what is righteous and just. Now in my private viewing, it’s nobody’s business. If people want me to view for them (and seriously, I don’t know why they would, I am no expert) they get what I give them. Learning to give them what is accurate is part of what I’m working on obviously. The raw session is mine. It’s filled with process notes, spontaneous insights about people and situations nobody’s business, and more. If they don’t like taking what I give them, they don’t need me viewing for them.

Of course, sometimes I just suck anyway, so they don’t ask. I recall Tunde tasking me on something eons ago and I gave him a big session with a sketch focus on… well maybe it was a soccor ball, perfectly round with this hexa-something shape inside. I saw this guy with white all over his face, and had the mass-crowds-hysteria data already, and AOL’d bigtime on the 9/11 thing, esp. as I felt Tunde had a tendency to task terror targets at that time (tasker aol, sigh!), and made the session into some catastrophic event, when really it was a soccer (football) game (World Cup). This probably explains why he doesn’t ask me for sessions anymore LOL. Anyway, where was I? I’m so ADD-like today it’s ridiculous…

OK, but in public viewing — such as with TKR — what’s fair and “just” for data? I gave the tasker a scan of my raw session. I uploaded the presentation session for everybody else (see TKR at the Dojo Psi, the Galleries, Missions page). And a bit later I went ahead and posted both over on PJRV for reference from my Red Cairo blog. So it’s not private anymore. But it’s got me thinking on this.

Should I be required to share raw data with “the public” if the forum in which I’m doing the viewing is “public”? Is that like an implicit part of the unspoken social agreement of viewers viewing together? Is it rude or overly secretive of me to keep my raw data private? (Not that this scan was much of an example. I couldn’t find my lab book, was 3/4 asleep, and had to use some tiny journal-like book instead, in the near-dark. The only thing amazing about the session is that I could even read it to retype it the next day.)

I think I will be an autocrat and do what I want, how I want, when I want, anyway. But I posted a thread on the TKR RV webForum Board about this, just to see what other viewers think about it.

If you share all your data and it makes someone paranoid about something with zero evidence, is that a bad thing? I mean if it’s bad to scare people for money as is done in RVland regularly by at least one source, is it just less-bad to scare them when it isn’t for money? Is it less-bad to scare them about one topic rather than another? Where is the dividing line of what is “the right thing to do”?

I know… I’m neurotic. I’m a Virgo x4, gimme a break.

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 29 June 2006

It’s just too mushy to believe. And so . . . metaphysical! I apologize in advance for any hard-headed, no-nonsense viewers this post sends screaming into the night.

An interesting thing happened during Emotional Sequencing (pre-session intro) last night. And in the session that followed, I had an interesting experience that was difficult to articulate. No wonder. It is not normal to experience “being” a tornado, as a very unique creature. One can do little but personalize it in human terms! The session was imperfect (though had good data too) but that was my inability to translate, articulate, communicate. On feedback, I understood. My target contact rocked.

I suspect the pre-session insight and session as ‘confirmation’ may change a lot about my viewing. I feel that in my genuinely good-intentioned quest of self and universe to find some answers, I may have actually found something that has meaning to me.

I was intending to go through the common emotions for E.S. and it just… worked way better than expected. Along the way of feeling wonder-anticipation about the session, and determination, and humor, I had another new feeling appear inside me spontaneously, evolve into a whole new perspective, and it just … carried me away!

The feeling up first was respect. This “bloomed” like an inner flower into a full acknowledgement of the target. Our own thoughtform definition as far as “inclusion and exclusion” goes, yet still its OWN thing of a sort. An identity of its own. Sort of. Not exactly self-aware, but aware.

Those feelings brought the understanding that a session explores a relationship between the viewer and the target. It then pulled in more of the respect, added a hefty dose of “fond appreciation,” and a warmth spread from my chest as if my heart chakra were ‘blooming’, and suddenly I was perceiving the target as Sensei. Great respect for the honor of the relationship, for the opportunity to learn. The most astounding perception was this concept that it was agreeing to teach me. A mutual relationship.

Yet even as I marveled at this rather offbeat way of looking at it, a complete reversal of the normal me-as-centric, I realized that this is the most fundamental truth of a session: that I want to learn about it, of it, and from it. What makes me think that process would be all about me? And not equally about IT? The fact that “it” was something I’d been granting all the sentience of a postage stamp five minutes earlier did not escape me.

For years, I have had only two things I considered “givens” based on all my experiences over time. The rest is variable for me. These two things are not.1. All things are composed of consciousness (which is energy which is inherently aware as a property which even when not self-aware is still awareness).

2. All things long for evolvement (via absorption of energy which is power which is like food which causes growth which is evolution).

These have been the core “understandings” I’ve held about reality for years. How could I have forgotten?

How could I have not applied this to Remote Viewing?

Here’s a thought. What if when we miss a target, I mean really miss it—when we are literally “off target” (as opposed to misinterpreting or miscommunicating data from the target, which is different)—what if it’s because the target at that moment does not choose to share itself with us? I’m reminded of the spoon-bending efforts, the feeling-for-permission activity, the shouting at it. We are trying to convince it? IT? Are we suggesting that a spoon has consciousness? If so, it’d seem a given that entire targets of information do. So what if it says “no”? Can we force it? Yes I believe we can, just like I can go dump chemicals on my plants/soil that will force bloom even if it is inappropriate timing for them. But maybe it takes extra effort and “Will” to succeed at the forcing when there is nothing “mutual” going on. Why make it harder than it needs to be? Isn’t RV inconsistent enough without working against the universe?

Back in 1996-7 I had a dream where a target and I were having what felt rather like a dance. As I slowly awoke, a voice said to me, “It images itself for you.” I put that on the front page of Firedocs RV because it struck me as so profound, and because at the time, it felt like the target and I had this relationship that I can only compare to lovers getting to know each other. As if I were a man and the target were a beautiful woman who deep down, really wanted to show herself, really wanted to be fully known, really wanted to be admired, really wanted to have the full uninhibited ability to interact with me without reservation and have me appreciate and delight in every part of her. Whether it’s RV, dowsing or anything else, would it help to enlist the assistance of the others involved? That would be… the target, since that IS the other party involved, right? But we’d have to recognize the target as having some consciousness in order for this to happen. As long as we treat targets as if they’re as unimportant and assumedly-dead as used chewing gum wrappers, we’re unlikely to be granting them the kind of respect that would breed a good relationship and rapport.

Later when I thought about it, writing an email to a friend about this, I realized just how shallow the common perspective really is. The RV framework, in the process of getting rid of the religious and mystical garbage (and thank God for that, pun intended), seems to have gone to the other extreme. Maybe it is the element of having scientists and soldiers in a culture of consumers and corporatism, that set the “tone” for perspective and exploration, but it seems to me now, that our perspective is so… shallow and limited. Typical of the humans we are, with RV we act just like we do with anything else. Going in and taking what we want, with no regard to what is right for balance, no respect for our relationship with anything else–we cannot even recognize such relationships exist, because we don’t grant sentience to anything else!

Information as a Natural Resource

We expect to know the target because we want to. We insist. Because it would be convenient and fun for us to have this power of insight. Because we want to harvest the information as a resource. Mostly, because we CAN. So… the same logic we used for everything from stealing land to polluting rivers we use with RV— no matter how cosmic it might seem, no matter it’s all about “consciousness,” we don’t seem to have any change of perspective for RV. We’re human, we want it, so we take it, and we don’t even think about the details. I am not saying we have been unkind to the universe via RV. I am just saying we are clueless and missing out as a result of the viewer-as- sole- participant- in-session perspective. The ignorance may affect our results. I suppose the reason this subject doesn’t come up in the context of RV is because we do not for a moment expect that the target has anything to do with it. ‘Cause it’s all US, you know? Gosh, the universe revolves around humans, what else exists, let alone matters?

Amazing, really: you take the one niche group of people who ought to MOST respect the “consciousness of the universe” and they treat targets—whether people, animals, locations, events, or any combination of things—like “inanimate” objects. (Don’t get me started on how inanimate objects are ‘composed of consciousness’ as well; they are not self-aware, that much is a given, but that doesn’t mean they have no awareness that contributes to the mix of a given environment, or that contributes to the conglomerate of a target-identity. You can certainly share the awareness of an inanimate, I’ve done it. Spontaneously, never mind many times during RV.) We don’t see a target as “a conglomerate of consciousness.” As something we should respect, something we are interacting with, not just observing. One experienced viewer even told me that interacting with the target data was “incredibly dangerous” and should be avoided. Maybe so. But maybe being a genuine student of the universe means something more to me than RV on the surface does. The session that followed knocked my socks off. I am certain I could not have experienced that if I hadn’t been willing to grant some degree of awareness to the target itself first.

So in the end, I had a question: what am I missing? How is my thinking limited or incorrect?Love was the answer.

Maybe not the only answer, but one that I feel really opened my eyes… and heart.

Somehow, I think for a lot of people into viewing, this is just not going to be possible for them to get their brain around. I think it will sound too new age, too airy-fairy. I am usually the one saying viewers should not “project” their performance details onto taskers, analysts, and a variety of other things that we use as excuses in our field; that viewers should take total responsibility. But responsibility for my role, does not mean invalidating that anything else exists to mutually participate. Some people use the ‘you create your own reality’ concept to invalidate the universe around them as merely a projection; others use it to validate the universe around them as a delightfully creative canvas of self they get to interact with. I’m in the latter group, obviously. Most viewers have read that book “The Conscious Universe.” Most viewers if questioned would be perfectly happy to say, that consciousness permeates our holographic universe, whatever. Yet I don’t see or hear that armchair theory “rolling down into” perspective or theories or hands-on application or discussion.

What difference might it make in our physical world, if man began working with nature, with all things as deserving of respect, with the earth as a relationship?

What difference might it make in our psychic world, if we did the same thing?

---

“If you love it enough, anything will talk with you.”
– George Washington Carver

---

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 28 June 2006

It’s on the tip of my brain. It’s just half a geometry abstracted, like some session data just slightly too outside me. It is just… out… of… reach.

There is something incomplete in the way I think about RV. I can feel it. The funny thing is, I noticed this consciously some time ago, and since then half a dozen people privately have voluntarily brought up the subject. Their combined comments amount to:

I think there is something wrong with the way we think about RV, or psi, or reality, or something. Like if we had some different way of looking at it, somehow, things would be clearer. Like we are holding some assumption that is in our own way.

I figure this much spontaneous feedback from others means it’s a thought I need to pay attention to.

---

First, there are things I know I should be applying to my session work. I’ve even mentioned these online eons ago in various pieces but forgot about them. There is just no excuse for me not to expand what viewing I do to incorporate these basics.

1. Target contact: After-session. I once had the ‘intuitive insight’—a sort of information channeling—hit me right after a session that if I didn’t have target contact, it’s because that wasn’t my true desire. And I thought it was, but the insight showed me that if it was, I would be getting in contact with it when I got feedback. I thought, “After feedback? But then it’s too late!” But I “realized” (part of the insight) how ridiculous that is. There is no reason why you can’t make target contact after seeing the feedback picture. If anything it ought to be a bit easier. The part that gets complicated is getting “novel” data without what you now-know-about-it interfering in some way, but so what? For the purpose of target contact only (not data), anybody psychic should be able to “tune into” a target in a picture. If we really, genuinely wanted that target contact, we would want it—and we would make that effort not only during the session but afterward. And of course, this would intensify the feedback experience quite a bit. When I practiced this, and I was doing my session late at night, I would often dream about the target… in some of the coolest ways! Often really ’shamanic’-like experiences… and where the target itself had consciousness.
2. Target sketching: After-session. Following on the intuitive insight above, I had the perfectly normal insight following one session that if I cannot sketch something while looking at the feedback photo, how do I expect to sketch it while remote viewing it? Often my perspective during the session is bizarre. As if my eyeballs were resting on the dirt 20 feet from the target and turned at a 45 degree angle or something. I am terrible at “perspective” in sketching which really makes my viewing process suffer, given nearly everything I see visually is in some bizarre partial-and-perspective state. Well it occurred to me that if I wanted to work on sketching, when I get feedback, I should sketch the target (FB). But then I realized that was an even better idea than I realized, because if you only quick line-draw sketched “what was most important and relevent about the target” during this practice, you would literally be “educating” that part of yourself about what should be considered ‘most important and relevent’. So, leave out the flagpoles and fire hydrants and curbs and surroundings and people standing around; if what is important is a pointy structure, a porch structure, a lawn filled with political picket signs, and people in line on the porch, then that is the only thing that should be in the sketch. This would help with the target contact attempt above, it would help with educating ourselves about the ‘most important and relevent’ focii, and it would help sketching skills to get some practice.
3. Love the one you’re with. I truly believe that rapport is greatly facilitated by “appreciation” of anybody and anything, and that having a respect for the target, no matter what its possible nature, just as an equally valid “experience”, is something to be consciously considered.
4. Emotional Sequencing. This is a term I came up with many years ago to describe deliberately working through emotions like a karate kata. You map out emotions that are conducive. Hope. Wonder. Suspense. Humor. Delight. Earnestness. Determination. Acceptance. etc. and you go through them, in order, giving yourself several seconds of each to really ‘get it into yourself’, it’s an emotional cocktail, a recipe, to help generate the kind of “power” on the feelings-side to help drive intent.

These things are part and parcel of doing remote viewing practice “fully”. Not just of sitting down, writing impressions and moving on, but of really squeezing every drop of experience and improvement out of every session. Why is that some people can practice three times a week and advance better than some practicing three times a day? Because some people get so much more out of the practice they put in. Maybe they learn better ‘visually’ from feedback than others—in which case, the emotions and the sketching of after-feedback rapport+sketch should help others a lot. Maybe they are more talented, who knows. But I feel a session should not just be considered the moments writing things down, but should include the warm-up process and the session “review” process (for practice) as well, and without those other components, it’s not complete.

I don’t know what the answer is to “the perspective” that I feel I do not have… correctly-set for Remote Viewing to somehow be a little different for me. I feel as if it’s all a geometry, and I am not really in alignment.

Will blog more rambling on firedocs.

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 28 June 2006

I don’t think my subconscious is speaking the same language I am.

I don’t like the word ’subconscious’ as it comes with lots of baggage-assumptions and mental-models I don’t share, but lacking a better word for consensus reality, I’ll use that one.

I had the idea last night that if a target is… a thing of its own, its own energy, and I am a thing of my own, my own energy, then our experience of the target is actually a distinctive and unique third-thing, which is “Me+Target=Session”. I know that’s obvious. But when you really think about that, it implies a whole lot of question about that third-thing and its nature.

---

OPTION 1

If I get symbology instead of basic target data, could it be in part because there is some… inability in myself to clearly perceive the target for what it is? Maybe it’s something obscure like body-clarity, literally; some tiny nerve cluster is blocked by toxins or pressure, is it possible that means data can’t route that way or be pulled from storage near that place, so the body has to look elsewhere?

Well that is only one idea. There are others.

Is there some obscure value or energy in me that would make my interior-energetic-perception of any given object or location or person, different than how I would perceive it with my eyes?

You know how you can be in OBE state and you might see a chair with a jacket on the back, but it’s pulled out rather than under the desk like it ‘literally’ is at that moment. There might be your cat sleeping on the end of the bed who it so happens died 5 years prior; and the tree outside might be conscious; and there may be a large river, sky and trees around included, rushing through the area that 5 minutes ago when you were IN your body, was the hallway outside your bedroom door. It’s just another day in OBEland.

I used an allegory in Bewilderness that I called “The Rainbow of Soul” and said to consider physical reality the red band, the astral reality the orange band, and mental reality the yellow band. What happens when you are somewhere “between” red and orange? Close enough to red that we can perceive physical reality… far enough into orange that it’s… pretty…. weird…?

---

OPTION 2

Might there be something up with remote viewing that is giving us “a small dose” of this same issue OBE perception has, except so small a dose, that instead of recognizing it, we just toss the result off as “symbolism” or “inaccuracy”?

Aside from more-alert (vs. deeply altered state) forms of RV, might there be any other way to help “ground” the perceptions we get, in the “frequency” where our physical reality is currently operating?

Lately, I’ve had this idea that maybe I’ve been thinking about it all backward.

Usually, I think about it like, if I don’t get a sufficient amount of specific info, my target contact wasn’t good enough. In short, I figure I wasn’t getting enough information.

But maybe it’s just the opposite. Maybe the pathways inside me have so much MORE data from the target (than my eyes), that the “symbolic-word(s)” it uses to communicate something to me is forced to “include” more density of info.

---

OPTION 3

Could it be that the information I get is changed because I’m actually getting a better more “complete” view? And that it’s a reverse-engineering problem, where rather than trying to get more information, I am actually in need of getting vastly less, or figuring out how to “strip it down” to less, or “separate the components” so I can get only the specific dimension of data (physical data usually) that I want?

I am NOT really referring here to something like a methodology which, like CRV, deliberately forces the viewer to ’start with component data’, because this issue occurs even within methodology when at later stages. I’m more concerned with how our minds may “roll up” and present some furled-symbol that ‘incorporates’ a lot of information, and how to become aware of that, how to decipher it, etc.

---

I want to do some examples¹ from sessions over the next few months, because I don’t feel there is nearly enough hands-on session-experience discussion or examples online. Working on that in the background. For the foreground and now, I’m going to use my regular practice sessions and just pull out one little example of how something worked, as often as I have time. This may be data that is accurate, inaccurate, symbolic, or whatever needed for the example.

^{(In examples, I may slightly change minor things to provide ’sense or context’ for my point, to aid in clarity or brevity.)}

I hope readers understand that anybody with a website or microphone can claim omniscience. Anybody could show you only pieces of sessions or only certain sessions or even “improved” (ha…ha) sessions, that would make readers drool in awe over their magnificent psychic ability. I want to example stuff I find interesting, or worth considering, or wondering about. As luck would have it alas, this is unlikely to be data that actually matches the target perfectly, since there wouldn’t be much to wonder about in that case. Nothing I example should be construed as summing up my viewing, heh!

Today’s example is about symbology.

Session evaluation for learning purposes is a matter of looking at feedback and re-vivifying how it ‘felt’ when you got data, and attempting to find the connection between what you felt, and what is in the target. Sometimes this is guessing + feeling = assumption, but that’s the tools we have and the puzzle we have to solve.

I’m hoping it doesn’t make anybody think I’m trying to ’stretch’ data to fit or something like that. Only the viewer knows what they feel in session, what they feel with feedback, and how things might relate. Sometimes real obvious relations (and even seemingly accurate data), the viewer knows is wrong (e.g., they were applying it to something very different than it seems). Sometimes stuff others see no relationship in, the viewer understands the internal connection that brought a certain kind of data for a certain target element. This is a good faith effort here.

Although I experiment constantly, I have a ‘base’ I go back to. I’ve just gone back to my roots and for this example (from last night) I was using my typical personal method. It employs Warcollier’s ideograms, though differently than CRV, and something I invented years ago that I call Aspect RV based on Jane Roberts’ “Aspect Psychology” work. I call my method “PJRV”—what else? It is part of Zen do Ryu Remote Viewing as the Dojo Psi would put it.

---

In last night’s session, I had about 40 minutes. Tasking was system-generated (we mix TKR, RV Targets, and some other sites) by my viewing buddy who provided feedback after we both finished our sessions. Fairly early in the session, about 10 minutes in, I’d had some ideograms, text, a sketch “fragment” and then I asked an Aspect for information.

In the end, the session overall made me believe that I had decent target contact, or I would not use this as an example. I am focusing here on only one tiny piece of data. Obviously there’s other and better-related data that makes me feel I had some connect.

I saw a person walking across this ~12 foot long, flat structure floating on water, like a pier but on the water. He had come from something and was going to something, both at the same level but solid, rather like the edge of a dock but down at the same level as what he was walking on. I “felt” he was walking on something that got him from one place to the other and kept him out of the water. My “sense-interpretation” was that the important part was the middle-thing; not the water, not even the walking although that would be included, but the focus was the object and its function.

There were a few primary data points in the target. I would consider them this:

1 – church structure

2 – porch structure

3 – people

4 – front lawn with signs

5 – concept of politics and voting

6 – concept of competition, advertising, signs

Wrong or right, this is my example: I believe that the data I got of the fellow walking across a flat structure from one place to another was symbolic or best-internal-match data for the ramp/porch in this target.

Had I articulated the minimal basic data well, which I didn’t (I ignored the AOL, I said path instead of structure, I failed to note the wood-dock-like look, etc.), it would have been ok. The min basic was this: “There is a small connecting structure a person can walk across to get from one area to another.” Of course, I didn’t really know what or which data was appropriate at the time.

OK here’s the part that drives my viewer-brain Stark. Bleeping. Crazy.!: I’ve seen lots of wood porches in my life. There is no obvious reason why my mind could not simply have dived into my database of memory and grabbed me any number of useful “wood porches” — even those with people standing on them, even those that ramp up, I have seen them all! So you gotta ask:

Why didn’t it just show me a freakin’ wooden porch?!

Well, I’m guessing of course, but maybe to my subconscious, the visible-physical part is just very shallow. Too few dimensions of data.

Maybe it showed me what it did in part to get the concept related to the church across. Instantly my mind got the ‘walk on water/religious’ idea.

I didn’t realize it until feedback, but the “dock-like flat structures” that were offside “each end” of the thing the fellow in the visual was walking, were wooden-beam structures just like the porch.

So we have:
* composites (wood) accurate,
* gestalt (structure) accurate,
* function and purpose (leading one safely from one side to another) is accurate
…….although only in part as the water thrown into the symbol is distractive.
* But the water/change in the symbol brought the concept (religious) in, which added more data
…….even though in doing so, it “distracted” me by seeming to give me extra/inaccurate physical data.

In a conversation we may choose several different words which have meanings that overlap, but slightly-different associations (or ’semantic baggage’) with them. Perhaps the subconscious is doing this, but in its own way. Maybe whatever we see is actually like a “carrier wave” with yet-more data to “unfurl” from whatever we got.

(Hmmn. I just thought of that just now. I’m interested in ‘interacting with the data’, a hangup from my archetype work… I wonder if a visualization to record what I get and then ‘unfurl it’ to see what else comes through would bring anything of note. Will have to try it and let you know.)

In order to make sense of this and be better at viewing, I need to better understand the symbolism I get.

And in order to do this, understanding how-and/or-why my mind creates the symbolism it does to begin with, would help!

---

But then again.

Maybe it’s not all about us. We are only one variable in a two-variable equation. Maybe sometimes it’s about the target, too.

Might it be possible that a target inherently has its own history that is part of its identity and hence how it comes across to us as well?

Might the founding/creation intent, the usage, and other factors become “intrinsic or implicit” parts of the target itself, and hence show up in data? We assume yes… right? (I say this not as a caveat to excuse data, but as a consideration to better understand data.)

So if certain… qualities, creation, experience, concepts, purposes, functions, are intrinsic to the target, well, that means we don’t know the target as well as we think we do. Like a lovely young woman we think we know all about based on what she looks like, maybe the target, like a person, can have surprising depths and twists that we don’t know about, but which underlie the very essence of what it IS. In that case, our variable changed. The target isn’t what we think, in that case. It may LOOK like a porch, or a cheerleader, but maybe there is more under the surface than we could feasibly guess at, but that psychically will come across just fine. The Target + Viewer = Data equation will have a different result.

Most of this is intuitively obvious from any armchair.

None of it’s new but for new folks I’m walking through it, and because I’ve been thinking about it lately.

---

How does this translate into practical terms for remote viewing?

It’s not enough to Stage 5 your session into the ground. Those are useful tools, although to me they are more like “no-brainer processes you’d use during viewing” (not as a stage). A whole effort of S5 applied to a session would only result in yet more data on top to try and figure it out (in a structure that already has on average way too much data for clarity about what is accurate or meaningful in my opinion). So I don’t think that’s an answer.

In a perfect world, we would have sufficient target contact to just “know” what matters. In the real world, sometimes we do… often we don’t.

As part of figuring this out, I feel one needs every session to be a four-part process, to get as much learning from the experience as possible.

1. The first part being what I call Emotional Sequencing, a formal and more complex version of what most people call the cool-down or warm-up. (I used to be very ‘into’ hypnosis and NLP and this is a riff taken from some techniques in there.) Or in a nutshell, psyching yourself up for the session.
2. The second being the session itself. Whatever it might be.
3. The third being “a session on the session.” We might drop some data, and we might add other data, and we might further-flesh-out sketches or annotations of sketches. This is what is done in a CRV summary except here we’re applying that not to a paragraph of words at the end of the session, but rather to what I call a “presentation session” that is a second, similar but separate product. The original session, to me, is personal; it may have personal notes and experiences and thoughts and private data. The “presentation session” has the data I wish to present to others. (If I am wrong about what to include vs. not, or what gets added, well, that’s part of what I’m learning.)
4. The fourth being a sketch and a rapport process with the target once there is feedback, accompanied by then going through the session vs. target-FB in detail for understanding.

Repeating experience, improved target contact, familiarity with symbols, and just plain asking for “literal visual” data, all of these obviously go toward better understanding this process.

But I still feel that for me, there is a whole yawning abyss (how’s that for symbolism) when it comes to symbolic data and understanding it. I get data in a session and I know it applies… just not how!

---

If I see a flash of a structure, vertical wood beams, wall and overhanging roof, with a man standing there, what part is the data? Is it ’structure’? ‘Wood’? ‘Overhang’? ‘Roof’? ‘Vertical beams’? The man? Something about the man? Is it that he’s standing around? Is it “all of the above” (man standing around on porch of a shack made of wood beams with a porch roof overhang)? The smallest flash of visual contains so much data. Figuring out which data is what my mind is trying to get through is the hard part.

Some might reasonably say that I shouldn’t be focusing on “what matters” in session because that’s trying to do analysis on the data as it comes in; one should just record what one gets. But I must in this respect, not because I want to match feedback even, but because I want to understand myself. There’s more reason than that, though:

At times I would need to spend ten minutes writing an entire essay on all the data contained within a micro-second flash. After which, I would be totally in left-brain mode and out of the session flow. I’d have pages of data and only one or two points in there would matter at all, and even that only in symbol. The only miracle would be having sessions shorter than 6 hours, and avoiding the AOL drive that three solid pages of data all about a single given symbol is likely to provide.

Some people ask for literal data and they get it. Their mind just hops in and says “Stone,” or whatever. I spend time learning how a combination of four unique, nebulous body-feelings combine in order to feel that something is stone; some people just ask for it and get it. Go figure. Sometimes that works for me. Sometimes not.

Until I find a way to make getting literal data consistent, I guess I need to figure out “how to figure out” the symbolic stuff, though.

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 24 May 2006

We might all be psychic, but like most viewers I experience this in spots. If yesterday and today I am omniscient, tomorrow I might not be able to accurately describe a garbage can. This is the only reason my ego isn’t larger than Jupiter and I can still stand myself. On most days.

But the last month of viewing has been such a trial of character, my ego is now the microscopic size of a Saint’s. When I finally broke through and did something right, I was so happy to get any accurate data I felt like falling to my knees in a religious level of gratitude. “I was blind, but now I see!” Literally.

I’m pulling out of that swamp of the psyche now. Most viewers only talk about success, but today I’d like to talk about a phase of being totally, utterly, consistently lousy at RV.

Just how bad is it?

When I say viewing was horrid the last month I don’t mean ordinary inconsistency.

I don’t mean the cycle of “change” inside that seems to revise the whole symbolic and ideogram vocabularly and make you feel like now that you’ve finally got a handle on the conversation, the subconscious is starting it all over again. And you know how much fun it is when you start: as I said after CRV methods training eons ago, From all appearances, the subconscious speaks Etruscan in 4-D, translates it through geometry, encrypts it in some long-dead fish language, and then feeds you that information in code. Of course, it’s always perfectly obvious in retrospect.

I don’t even mean a cycle of feeling “blocked,” where one sits about staring moodily at the paper, until either the mind makes something up out of sheer desperation, or falls asleep in despair-based denial.

I mean just a consistent dose of plain ol’ “can’t hit the broad side of a barn.” This is the flag, that dratted C-word: “consistent.” Remote Viewing has only one thing sure: it’s inconsistent. Nobody is good or bad forever. That’s what gives novices hope, despite the long haul of learning, and keeps others from being unbearable.

I am not always on target by any means, but more often than not, I am—which is not to brag in any way because you can be on target and still have a miserable session. It’s just that if my sessions are lousy, it’s usually a process fault: my translation, articulation, interference, etc. had problems. Most the time, it’s not because I didn’t have target contact.

Chance (probability) alone suggests that even by sheer accident, we’ll have at least basic data correct once in awhile. So when session failure is “consistent,” there is something going on. That’s not just being lousy at RV, it’s actual psi-missing. This suggests a big problem in viewer psychology.

It’s ok to suffer. But being an undisciplined whiny half-wit isn’t ok, so the next thing to do when your RV sucks is to think about how to dig your way out.

Signs You’ve Got Remote Viewer’s Angst

Dentist appointments are a welcome break from your suffering.

Newbies make you want to shout “Run, Hans! Escape while you can!”

Lunatics on the radio make you sympathetic: “End of the world, eh? We’ve all had those days, buddy.”

Even the drooling TKR galleries commenters couldn’t make your session seem like a hit.

You start to wonder if you skipped a step that’d make this work. Like maybe selling your soul.

You start secretly wishing for an AOL-drive disaster; at least it’d feel like a good session.

(Paranoid guilt arrives. Yes. You will be punished for even thinking about AOL drive like that.)

You investigate your ‘gut feeling’ about RV and it only says “Go away. But first give me more chocolate.”

You suspect your cat is thinking, “I knew you were a psychic brick. This is news?”

Re-gearing and Re-tooling

I have a few pick-me-up approaches I have used over time to recoup from blinding incompetence. I recently, finally employed a couple, and already things are better. So as my contribution to viewer-therapy, I offer:

HOW TO KICK THOSE I-SUCK-AT-RV BLUES.

1. No more than one session a day.

   Desperation breeds repetition. When what we’re doing isn’t working, we tend to do the same thing harder, rather than do something differently. I am all for lots of practice but once ya slide into a miss-mode it’s different. “More sessions” in this mode end up resulting in less focus, with less emphasis on the individual session. It distributes the agony of failure. It gives the subconscious a soft landing—”I can always try again.” Demand your subconscious perform during the only chance it’s got. Pull in your focus, regroup, parse your viewing down to a few specific occasions, and give it all you’ve got. Viewing while in a funk usually just means more lousy feedback experiences to break your heart. Do just one session a day. Plan for it. Psyche yourself up for it. Feel for it. And then do it well. If it doesn’t go well, don’t go on doing session after session. Just do that one. If you fail, then suffer! On purpose. It builds character—and determination.

2. Modify session work to “exercises” with specific expectations.

   It’s important to get feedback validating your ability and accuracy. The longer-larger the session, the more room for wandering. When sessions go badly for awhile we often tend to drag out the process, our self-confidence having been weakened, our sense of target contact being nebulous. Set yourself an exercise(s) that is brief—not more than 15 minutes at the most—and that is very specific. Decide, for example, that you want to have at least one decent visual in the session which, upon feedback, you will be able to clearly correlate to the target. That is your only goal for that exercise. It doesn’t matter if all the data is wrong. If during the session you had one decent visual that, on feedback, you can see was on-target, then you know you ARE being psychic and getting the data you wanted and it’s just a matter of focus. If that doesn’t work, change your goal: make it to get just the gestalt, or just one good color—whatever. Find a goal you can meet. (If you’re doing “little exercises” rather than whole sessions, several a day is fine.)

3. Knock off the “field politics,” if you’ve got any or read any.

   Nothing has done my viewing more damage than the contentious debate on the internet and the ridiculous hype-schtick of the media. I get to where I sit down to view and my overall emotional, psychological association with the whole topic of ‘remote viewing’ is affected by the fact that I am disgusted and bored and annoyed about a variety of RV topics or people. Even just reading email lists or message boards or chat rooms where people spend more time grousing about the details or opining from the armchair than actual viewing, can drag one’s attitude down. For some reason it’s harder to clear my mind during RV of RV-related topics than even of far more serious personal topics. Anything “distracting” you may be engaged in that relates to remote viewing, take a break from it for awhile. “Congregating” in general is good, sharing with others is a basic need and supportive of the community, but let it happen in cycles that work for you, not all the time. When you’re having a dry run of session results, make sure your viewing is just about viewing, and not even potentially about anything or anybody else.

4. Re-acquaint yourself with basic RV details.

   Re-read a book like McMoneagle’s Remote Viewing Secrets. We breeze through it, “yada yada, we know all that,” and move on, but a re-read by any serious viewer will usually find several things they’d forgotten about, some things they hadn’t noticed in the last read, some things they now have more experience with than they did when they read it the first time, etc. On the chance your current RV issues are protocol-related, this may remind you. But even if not, it’s good to stay involved with RV in positive ways and “viewing downtime” is the perfect opportunity to refresh your memory on details and maybe come up with a few new ideas for exercises.

5. Refuse to lose — never surrender!

   I suspect sometimes that much of RV success over the long term is a matter of simply being such an unreasonable, stubborn bonehead that you refuse to lose. At least, for the really good viewers I know, this seems to be a trait they have in common! Plod on. Re-affirm to yourself that your success and development is going to happen, it is totally inevitable, you are going to be good at this no matter what, that if it isn’t working right now the subconscious is really just wasting both your time because it’s going to work, so the subconscious might as well get with the program. Refuse to accept anything else.

6. Make space and time to talk with your psychology.

   Sometimes there is inner-stuff going on that we need to deal with… and we aren’t doing so. These things may interfere with sessions. Or in some cases, they may actually influence the data or experience in weird ways. Do some pro-active meditation on any issues in your life—including your dry-run of recent RV success, that’s an issue—and see if you can work through it a little to “free up” your insides. Be creative. If you don’t meditate, take a shower and do the dishes or wash the car and use those as visualizations of cleaning up and rinsing off “resistance” and things like that. Remote Viewing is as much about you as the target. (In some philosophies these aren’t really separable.) Sometimes the issue isn’t RV itself; sometimes that is only a side-effect of other things. See if you can resolve the “you” part of the equation through normal psychological means.

Go View. You can’t give up or you really might be doomed. Most “breaks” from RV end up being rather like taking a break from a diet — likely to become much longer than planned! — and it doesn’t get easier. I’m here to tell ya from experience—from way, way too much experience—that stopping and re-starting again brings a development curve Every. Single. Time. The loss of “momentum” in belief systems and practice are both very pronounced. I’m just your average uptight left-brain sort and if I can do it, you can do it!

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 22 May 2006

I wonder sometimes, about the larger world of our species and cultural conscious psychic development, and how it is best served.

So far, I have felt that RV served this requirement best. It seems a necessary bridge between the fear, superstition, fuzzy thinking, etc. that psychic functioning has always been nearly-drowned in, and the mental model that is necessary for any practical development, practical research whether formal or personal, and practical application.

RV is to psi what Ceremonial Magick or QBL (Cabala) studies are to Wicca. A methodical, experimental, documented process of personal development, with feedback, with observation, with adjustment, and with an end result of personal growth.

There is nothing wrong with non-RV “psi” work, at all; nor can psychic work be blamed for all the bizarre and bogus stuff that’s been dripping off it and sitting on it since time began. And there are plenty of psychics and Wiccans who are as utterly dedicated, documented etc. as those in the other variants; there are, however, generalities: psychic work and Wicca is more open, more freeflowing, in many ways. It’s simply something slightly different, depending on the details.

The difference isn’t just in words and protocol; it is in the entire conceptual framework it is found within. The differences are broader and deeper than any amount of semantic argument could demonstrate.

But will RV be the final answer?

RV is still my favorite thing, and I feel it’s important that plenty of people hold that line for the future. Yet I look at the remote viewing field at large, and it seems to me that somewhere . . . something went wrong. Something long before our time, actually. But something which the current field of dedicated viewers may or may not be able to lift the art entirely away from.

Maybe the ‘founding intent’ was polluted in some way. Maybe politics. Maybe government. Maybe there is just too much baggage of the overlord-control-issues of RV’s brief little life.

Maybe the muddy confusion about the term’s definition that has been present nearly as long as the term has. Even Ingo Swann, involved in the coining of the term, uses the term itself in so many ways through different articles that the list of quotes posted on it could be as confusing as enlightening. I feel sure I know what he means. Hahaha.

Deliberate psychic functioning seemed to start at one end of the spectrum, and as part of RV, got yanked nearly over to the other side. On the internet, some people go on interminably with left-brain over-analytical approaches that (aside from usually being an avoidance of doing as opposed to talking about), I gradually feel are an oxymoron to the entire function of it, and get us only farther and farther from truly understanding it. Sometimes I see stuff written about RV that is so removed from it I am reminded of how some people, to best understand a butterfly, would kill it and stick it under a microscope. There is learning there. But is it the learning we want? And is it possible that some people only go that direction because they are so incapable of the internal requirements for other kinds of understanding?

So then some people, with the aliens and religious entities brought into the equation, yanked RV yet another direction, from spiritual warfare to cult indoctrination, and that too has its own extremes. Then the dark side came along, the paranoid side, Big Brother is Watching You Watch Them ya know . . . and yanks it yet another way.

We have an uneasy peace when we gather viewers of many stripes together on the internet: a stand-off level of cultural homeostasis, resulting from a tight gridlock of paradigms about Remote Viewing, all with their own private extreme.

I feel that RV is a doorway. Not the final answer, but a necessary waystation. I begin to feel that thinking of RV as anything else puts limits on just how much a bridge and catalyst it can be for our people.

The path once traveled expands to something vastly larger than the term “RV” can begin to encompass. RV as a sole doctrine is landlocked. At some point, if a person wants to go farther, they’re going to have to, at the very least, expand their definition of what fairly connects to it.

For those who wish to pursue conscious psychic functioning, study within RV parameters, “RV for its own sake” is, I think, almost necessary at some point, just like certain exercises are necessary in shamanic practices before you can do other things.

But even RV, if kept too rigidly, is a high toll with no shore in sight. Like the glittering distractions of the New Age with its crystal side-roads away from spirit, RV with an overzealous lock on definition can extract an even higher personal price than commitment to it already demands.

RV is the ferry across spirit to the larger questions of Self. But don’t pay the ferryman . . . until you get to the other side.

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 17 May 2006

It has always struck me as odd that, as critical as search engines are about tags, quantity of content on a given topic etc., that often, a simple one page article on the Skeptic’s Dictionary — usually replete with more inaccuracy than a jr. high paper and more bias than a political activist — makes it so high in the search engines on so many topics. This same “search logic” isn’t so apparent in anything else as it is for that website.

In general, if you have one page on a topic, and maybe a dozen other pages that might mention a phrase, that would never — no, never, not in the wildest spam-marketing “we’ll make your website #1!” dreams — place a site near, let alone above, a website utterly dedicated to the topic with hundreds (or more) pages ALL of which mention the subject at hand.

But it works for the Skeptic’s Dictionary. This is apparently, in part, because as a single-entity website, they are the mental stormtroopers of the internet’s Thou Shalt Not (…dare think for yourself). Their traffic is astounding — in great part because search engines rank them well, which I don’t think is a factor in rank, as that’d be a circular argument. They have thousands of links-in to their website. Of course, that works well when your website actually covers a ton of different subjects, so has a much larger “link-in base” than the average site dedicated to a topic, not to mention when the whole of academia in the Western world worships your website. Search engines represent specific content searched for, but they apparently weight by even parts of the website which have no reference to that. That’s why an article from some newspaper can come up on a subject in your search results, even though on the whole of it, that paper may have very seldom had a word to say about that unique topic: the newspaper site at large has such a traffic flow and links-in that this alone amplifies the rank any of the content is given.

On its own, I have no gripe with it, aside from the fact that the author of several of the articles I’ve read there is a moron. I don’t care how many years his butt sat in a chair in college — my gosh, that’s a real testament to why some people oughtta be made to work for a living at a younger age — he’s an idiot. The inability to intelligently discriminate factual information is a telling sign of these creatures no matter what subject they’re covering, and no matter what credential is hanging from their neck, as even the RV field itself ought to make clear. I quit caring what people this stupid thought a long time ago, but I admit it is a little exasperating when the primary driver of the internet weights “remote viewing” results not simply by what has remote viewing data, or the most of it, but instead by what has a zillion pages and links on other topics having nothing to do with it at all. So if you have a zillion pages about basket weaving, and one about RV, and a bunch that have the RV term somewhere, as long as lots of basket-weavers link to your site, you can win the RV search engine term award?

Fortunately for the Skeptic’s Dictionary, Yahoo is as good to them as Art Bell is to Ed Dames. To about the same end result.

Firedocs Remote Viewing has held the #1 spot on Yahoo search engine for the “Remote Viewing” term search for a long time. About a month ago I did make some changes — put up additional information, all of which had more info about remote viewing (and yes, with that term everywhere). It is possible that adding more info about remote viewing to my already huge remote viewing website, would cause it to actually fall lower in the ‘remote viewing’ search ranks. In the search engine world, this kind of logic would not really surprise me. But Firedocs falling to the #2 spot is not actually what is bothering me. I know that any time I so much as add a sentence to my site, god only knows what the results will be; search engine logic makes the Cabalah look simple.

What REALLY hacks me off is that they gave the #1 search engine rank for the term “remote viewing” to the Skeptic’s Dictionary!

The link is a brief one page article on remote viewing, and thanks to Yahoo it now serves a good chunk of the world as the “primary” information “about” remote viewing.

ONE page. One BRIEF page. Never mind the content dissing RV—I don’t expect search engines to judge that. The point is, there is no righteous reason to weight that publication so heavily that it gets ranked ahead of every single other website on the internet ABOUT remote viewing. Which that website is NOT.

There are sites — not just mine, but others too — that have THOUSANDS of files, in half a dozen media formats, all utterly dedicated to remote viewing.

But the Skeptic’s Dictionary places #1.

Don’t think this is by accident. They’ve now managed to get Yahoo’s #1 ranking for the massive keyword “psychic” and #2 for “crop circles,” as well.

There are some search engines that are “Human Arbitrary” ranked, sure. Ask Jeeves is a good example. But Yahoo is allegedly not.

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 03 May 2006

To some degree, excepting a few prolific extroverts like me, most viewers on the internet could almost be said to be “in the closet.”

They read. They have an opinion. They view. (We assume.) But they have no desire to ever break out in song about it.

I’ve noticed that in other internet areas that are NOT Remote Viewing, people break out in song about every damn thing you can imagine. From doing laundry to evening traffic, from rock and roll to potato salad recipes, the one unavoidable thing about the internet is that there are millions of people who can talk about more subjects, at more length, than you have any interest in hearing about.

Except Remote Viewing.

Now, the viewing process is pretty interesting. Exasperating. From nebulous to stark clarity, from totally groovy to boring, sessions span the range of experience. You would think, in a niche-net of RV stuff on the www, that people would have some desire to spend a great deal talking about their actual viewing experience.

Why the heck not?

Why aren’t there scores of viewers with blogs talking daily about their experience in session, and how it seemed like this but really was that, how it came through as this which was really neat and now you see meant that, and etc.?

On an internet filled with an astounding number of people who have actual interest in exploring the details of naval lint, it is just astonishing to me that more people don’t talk about their actual experience with Remote Viewing.

I don’t mean their opinions or theories, I mean session experience.

OK, maybe it’s just me, but I find this really weird.

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 09 April 2006

Sessions have had the coolest visuals lately.

I saw a guy, so intensely clearly that if I ran into him in Walmart next week I would recognize him (and I’m not good with faces, so that’s really saying something). He was east indian ancestry it appeared, but an American I surmised. He was sitting on a firm couch with something on his lap he was writing on. He was well dressed, very cleancut, with back-length hair pulled back in a firm ponytail, which was curly. I watched him for a few moments, marveling at the clarity of it. It was just like ‘being there’ except there was no ‘peripheral’ vision, just him and the part of the couch and floor he occupied. Finally, from across the room I said, “Wow! I can SEE you!” — and he looked up in astonishment!

Judging by the look on his face, I’d say he either saw me or saw something anyway, and obviously heard me. Then I had that sense he was actually remote viewing (of all things — I mean, maybe that’s not unusual I’d tune into him given that, but how many humans are likely to be viewing at the same time??), and I said, “Oh my god! Are you viewing?!” and went to his side (sorta flew-instantly) and looked down at what was on his lap. But he moved quickly, like in a fear-reaction, as if to snap close something or hide it — and then I was staring at my session paper. I was thinking hmmn, I will know him if I meet him, I think that was real, and I don’t think it has anything to do with the target.

Not the first time I’ve seen people in session (whether a target or something spontaneous), though sometimes I just sense-hear them when that kind of thing happens. If I think to ask for a name I usually get it but I was so delightedly-astonished I forgot to ask, damn it! Of course, somewhere, some innocent guy is probably thinking, YOU SEE? EVIL ALIEN GOVERNMENT MINIONS ARE SPYING ON ME! and it’s all my fault.

In a diff session on a volcano two neat data format came across. The first was a sense of kundalini. I’d never thought of this before but when you consider it, volcanoes being the kundalini of the earth makes sense. The second was this very vivid (but I knew not-quite-literal) vision of a sort: there was some ‘morpheous’ (changing and not clearly defined shape at bottom, seeming fuzzy or liquidy or moving) shape at the bottom, and then something tall that went up high–I shallow-aol’d antenna, knife blade, etc. — but then there were these great, totally round, lightning-type-EM energy bolts that went up it, one after the other. It looked just like something out of a science fiction movie, it was great.

Sometimes the session experience is worth more than the data. Heh. OK a lot of the time. Still…

---

A friend PEM’d me and pointed out that almost indirectly, in my post from the 7th I said something nice about Jonina and Glenn in the same paragraph. They were suggesting that this means hell has finally frozen over. Really all it means is that I recognize efforts in RV. I don’t have to always agree with someone or even get along with them to see objectively that they are doing what they believe in and they’re working hard at it.

I sometimes have the feeling that on some level we are really all in this together, and that when we die we’re all going to realize that we were on the same team, and if we’d spent less time dissing or avoiding each other we all could have accomplished more. This reminds me of the time back in ‘97 or so when I was so pissed off about something in the RV field that I can’t even remember now, I fell into OBE by accident and hunted down Courtney Brown to “share my perspective,” aka just kick his butt. I was surprised at his spunk in fighting back, given that patronizingly soft little sotty voice he wears in the physical that always makes me want to punch him in the head every time I hear him on the radio. It ended up quite the Crowley-esque experience and by morning I was thinking that ever telling anybody would require instant ritual suicide for my honor, but now I think it’s just an example of the fact that whatever we do, say, think, etc. on the surface, may not really be the whole story and there’s probably a lot of spiritual stuff that means more, and is less petty, underneath.

---

I do still dream about Mars, I admit. But that’s probably just an archetype. Not about RV…

---

Lately I’ve been practicing a little more energy rapport than usual. I sure do miss hands-on work. It feels like I’m living in a canyon here, metaphysically, and it’s been so long since I did any regular eWork I can hardly even feel my chakras anymore, most the time.

---

Well it’s time to get up. I’d rather stay in bed. Of course, in order to stay in bed, first you have to go to bed. I’m late. Gotta view first, so I can say I made time to do at least one session yesterday.

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 29 March 2006

There is the old saying about how when you give a man a hammer, the whole world becomes a nail. It’s the delight of a new tool which you can apply, and seeing everything in the light of how it relates to your newest tool. Or bright idea. Or belief. Or, in the case of RV, your new data-recognition.

I’ve noticed it before but it came up again recently. I suspect it’s the same for many viewers. You’ll be going along, minding the universe’s business with your viewing (I mean we can hardly say we are minding our own business can we??), and you get a relatively clear sense of a certain thing. It doesn’t have to be a big, complex or complete thing. Just a thing.

Example: a sense of architecture roof/window molding/trim/frame. And say you get this fairly clear sense and it turns out you’re totally right, that’s not only in the session, but it’s the actual target-focus. The ego, utterly DELIGHTED to feel a sense of control in a process in which it is mostly excluded-confused (when not literally beat into submission) promptly “runs with it.” Hike! It has that damned football and it is not stopping until it’s in the endzone.

So it becomes your hammer, your mind’s new tool. And every target promptly becomes a nail. It doesn’t matter what you view for a bit; you’re going to see that data show up again and again for awhile. Even if your session data is totally correct; even if it’s described quite differently; some part of you will be going Yep! See? There it is! The mind is so delighted with its new knowledge, and applies it like crazy every chance it gets.

This isn’t limited to sessions; I think it is probably also common for viewers to notice things in the regular world much more clearly once they have really nailed them in a session.

Philosophy

When I thought about this, it started making sense, aside from just being both funny and exasperating. There are only so many physical forms in the world, shapes, relationships, geometries. There seems to be a limit to the core quantity of patterns, and just infinite variance in the detail (or, as a friend says, in the ‘dimensions’). As I look around here where I’m sitting, I can ‘graft on’ some of the same data basics of that example data (a framing, a thick border, the outside is stronger than the inside, the inside seems to ‘open up’ to something else) to my printer, my monitor, my desk itself, my armchair, all the drawers next to me, the shelves, even the carpeted cat tree. The ‘basic elements’ that comprise the data, even in combination, are found all over the place. Between physical qualities, conceptual qualities, relationships, function, purpose, composite (materials), etc. it’s just a matter of what % of a given ‘thing’ varies from the ‘thing’ in question.

I’m a musician so I think of it like chords. Say you have an A chord; you might think, “that’s an A!” about many sounds, but it might actually be an augmented 7th, or a minor 3rd, or a major 4th. Often only one note has changed or simply been added, or the sequence of the notes in scale are inverted. When someone is new to the sound, they recognize the leading tones, the main effect of it. As they get more used to the detail, they begin to be able to instantly recognize the variants, and what accompanying notes (such as bass notes below the primary chords) are doing.

It is the fleshing out of an entire language. But it has to start with the building blocks of notes, which in RV I equate to entry-level (and often useless on its own, but it may be accurate) data like “slanted” and “high” and “flat” and “curved” and so on; and then into the base architecture of chords, which in RV I equate to ‘things’ that have multiple interrelated elements yet may still only be ‘components’ of other things depending on the target they’re found in.

In a way I have come to see this as a good thing to recognize; when I get a data correct and then it starts showing up all over, even where it doesn’t belong (–but I can see the reasons ‘why’ this happens in the similarities of certain points of the data), I think it’s a sign that the subconscious has genuinely learned a new “composite sense”.

Alrighty then! Another one down. Rinse. Repeat 20,000 times.

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 28 March 2006

Taking a break from RV for too long can sure put the brakes on your RV progress. Eons ago when the RV Oasis/pjrv email list had an RV Haiku contest, one of my entries was:

My ship is sailing
Till I miss practice awhile
Bail the boat again

I may be the poster child for the longest RV development curve ever. My intellectual understanding of the process surpassed my experiential rating years ago, and at this point I’m more like some idiot-savant about the subject.

I tell myself I have talent (we probably all tell ourselves that). If I actually work on doing RV regularly even for a fairly short time, my ability increases exponentially. My cycles of denial try to keep up, of course. But in general, it’s clear that if I make the time to do it, I do fine. Alas I only tend to make time to do it in “chunks”, separated by weeks (sometimes months) of not viewing at all, where I am working my butt off, way too many hours, spending time with my little girl, whatever, not making the time for RV.

Then I have to start all over.

I have more experience working with others on their development than on my own, and while some might say that teaching has value of course I’d say more time “doing” and less time teaching would make me happier, not to mention a better viewer. I have that Virgo x4 service ethic, where the good of ‘the world’ seems more important than me, but the Scorpio-Aries part of me is trying to re-educate my priorities. I should let the rest of the world go to hell in its own handbasket and worry about myself a little more.

Work that body…

It’s not a matter of knowledge, it’s a matter of being limber. If a ballet dancer ceased training for weeks or months (in the case of ballet, literally every day is critical), it would be a disaster when they returned, they would be working frantically to try and recoup their losses in strength and flexibility and it would take quite awhile just to get back to the place they were when they left off. They would not have lost any of the knowledge or generalized skill related to their moves, of course. But their body would simply not be as fluent. That isn’t about what you know or understand, it’s simply about what your body is used to doing, allowing, and expecting.

I feel with RV that ceasing practice does the greatest damage in this area. There is what I call “the dive,” meaning, the first 30 seconds of a session basically. When I do RV regularly, it becomes common to simply “fall into it”. Usually, data comes pretty promptly, and usually the first data off the boat — which may fly by fast, so ya gotta be ready — is the core of the target. If I can anchor with that and keep going back through it for more I do ok. The whole session follows on that. It’s like a good dive when you are swimming: it not only gets you far inward, but helps propel you forward through the initial swimming to set a good pace.

When I lose that fluid, fluent ‘allowing’ and ‘expectation’ that regular practice breeds, my dive implodes. I sit there waiting for data that never comes. I can “feel” that I am “in my own way” and yet feel helpless to fix it. I eventually feel myself trying to invent data, as getting nothing is far more horrible than getting data that is wrong, at least for people who really hate suspense I guess.

I sometimes think that viewing is sort of ‘forcing open’ a small opening in the belief systems, and the more you view in protocol the bigger that belief-system opening gets and the stronger the doorway is. But it seems like, when you allow yourself to stop for very long, that opening slams shut with more force than if it had never been opened. And then it’s like pulling teeth and squeaking hinges, trying to force that door open again, enough that you can get through it at all let alone comfortably.

Today I have to view because I promised my buddy LD we’d do a session on the same thing sometime this afternoon. I probably wouldn’t get around to it if I hadn’t committed to someone personally. I’m beginning to think sticking with viewing every single day without falling off the wagon is about as tough for me as a 12-step program and I probably need a buddy-counselor-keeper to kick my butt about it. Sort of like a diet-buddy heh heh. I should script something in the galleries that lets people commit to doing a certain amount of viewing within a certain time and rewards ‘em if they do (I could go broke with amazon gift certificates I suppose).

Sigh… I’m beginning to think public mortification may be the only thing that finally leans on me hard enough to get me out of my workaholic mode and into more consistent viewing.

Heh. There you go, on this both my enemies and I agree: My ego is the only thing big enough to really move me.

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 13 March 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archived from the former firedocs blog. 22 November 2005

It’s a matter of HAVING to.

A long time ago, I read something where stage actress Helen Hayes said about acting: If you can do anything else, do it. At the time, about age 13, I thought she meant, if you have any other skills. Yet over time I saw that actors were very often incredibly skilled at many different things. Surely it couldn’t be that. Later when I hit adulthood, and the dichotomy of “responsibility vs. my music,” for the first time, I fully understood. She meant: if you can do anything else without wanting to throw yourself out a window, without feeling like your soul is dying from the inside.

Because statistically, almost nobody succeeds in the acting field. The business is merciless, the conditions are ruthless, the work when you get it is insane, the people are treacherous wolves, and it is a business without a future for nearly everybody who pursues it. Whether they are working small town dinner theatre, religious musicals or on broadway, in TV commercials or film dramas, the self-expression through dramatic experience is at the core, and in the end, people pursue serious acting not because it is fun, not because they casually might as well, but because they cannot fully live unless they do.

Some time ago I decided to take six months off my “non-work work” so I’d have time for a life. And to view, but having “a life” is first. Then viewing. Then everything else. For about 10 days prior to the due date, I viewed like crazy. A few days into the official vacation, I turned a 90 degree turn into politics, and spent two weeks catching up on a world I might rather have not known about all things considered. Dragged my sorry butt out of that and have been sleeping long and spending more time with my little girl since then. Mellowing. Petting the cats. Pretending I don’t have anything to do but work.

Working hard to NOT work hard for once. Trying not to view or anything else, not to feel like I HAVE to.

And damn if it doesn’t just call to me. That state of mind. That flow through my middle. That offbeat internal surprise. That vulnerable inner feeling of delight on feedback. That sense of body-understanding when feedback fills in the holes. The need for it. It’s like some Vitamin-B of the soul that my whole personality starts to crave when I don’t get enough of it. I was going to take the rest of November off — just to try and “de-focus,” since I always tend to be obsessively focused on something.

I’m not sure I can stand it.

It wells up inside of me when I sleep. It calls to me in half-precog dreams that wisp away before I’m fully conscious. It tugs at my guts when my friends are grieving. It dances just outside the edges of my consciousness. You could know me, it whispers. I am part of you.

The world wants to be known. Wants to be felt from the inside. Wants to be experienced. The world is as alive as we are. From the shorelines to the cloud cover, our experiential reality is a shifting kaleidascope of consciousness. You can hear it if you listen: Come play.

Go view.

Archived from the former Firedocs blog. 30 July 2005

What wiped out the dinosaurs? Mere minutes of session alas but fun anyway. Yes. I was sitting in the car waiting for the kid when I did it. That’s about the only time I have for viewing most days.

Today my practice target (not an RV target but a psychic target in this case) was another of the ‘anomalies and esoterics’ as I’ve always called them. Out of nearly 1000 targets there’s maybe 12 in this pool and I’ve gotten a few right next to each other. Go figure on how, what are the odds. Anyway, so the tasking was a boneheadedly complicated sort, one of a few that I’d written up last minute (probably at 3am) and tossed into the pool when I was making it a few years ago. The sort that makes you later go, “WTF was I thinking??”

Bad taskings are like a wishy-washy relationship–even after you suffer and escape the experience, you still aren’t sure exactly what lesson is to be learned from it. At least this one had some resolution based on ‘tasking context’ alone. Not enough to qualify as real RV but who cares.

The actual tasking was, “Describe the situation and experience of the extinction of the dinosaurs.” Gee that’s not complicated enough for one tasking. Maybe I should have included the creation of the universe and the collapse of Mayan civilization while I was at it! Seriously, that was stupid. I can think of 500 ways to better word it. Fortunately, since I was tasking myself, I assume that I knew what I meant!

In the session I had a sense of something BIG, a sense of a life form, and then a clear visual of what I could only describe as “a rock,” not very round, which was ‘glowing from the inside’, reminded me of how on a volcano rock can “glow through” an outer layer when it’s really hot inside, there was “motion”, and a sense of tons of dots/stuff/rays/something around the rock. The tiny sketch I drew looked like a mini-sun or something when I considered it. Mere minutes in, they returned to the car so I was out of time. (Story of my life!)

When I saw the tasking, the meteor theory made big sense then. A rock glowing with heat from the inside, surrounded by stuff or rays like a comet or something, in motion. Who knows.

As for feedback, there are two extinction theories for the great dinosaurs, either that they were fried suddenly in a cosmic collision or that a temp shift caused them to stop hatching enough females. As opposed to the Mastadons, which evidence suggests were “flash frozen”. What a way to go.

I guess I have to go back a bit to make this morning’s discovery make sense to anybody but me. I guess it’s an example of how viewing can muck with your mind and how information on targets that have no feedback can spawn all kinds of stuff.

Years ago (around 1997 I think), I had a powerful dream. I was standing in a big valley with a bunch of people who were impossibly tall, and it seemed like some ancient time. In the dream I seemed merged with others, like I often am “of The Four”. I think it’s possible, I felt on awakening anyway, that the people were all of the species that the female of my four often presents in, the one with the long head that I interpret as the “pre-egyptian”.

We were all focused on this rather majestic and powerful creature. Huge. As “I” (meaning, my identity here) got a little bit lucid in the dream, and so a bit more independent-thinking, I realized that the creature was made of stone, and I thought, but how can he be alive?

They responded in a way that amounted to, If a creature of bone [such as you, or we] can be sentient, why not a creature of stone?

There was some overlay of an odd similarity between bone and stone that I didn’t fully get. But the point was that the creature was very much alive–I knew that, as I could feel it.

I gazed at it, so incredibly alone in this space somehow. Won’t it get lonely? I asked, feeling such a strong sense of its uniqueness in the world, and its powerful and sentient presence.

They responded in a way that amounted to, Yes, but we are creating for him a mate, and so, then they will not be alone.

When I woke up, I understood that the stone creature was the Sphinx in Egypt. It was just a no-brainer… I didn’t guess, I just knew.

When I told LJ about this way back then, he of the endless study of archeology, anthropology, science anomalies and so on, he said that was interesting, because he’d run across at least one legend of an alleged sphinx on the other side of the world facing the one we know, at some point in history (apparently not now).

Well, it’s a trivia, and that was that. It did give me a sort of ‘empathy-sense’ for the sphinx, though. Every time I have seen a photo of it since that dream, I have felt such a sense of sadness, and a sense similar to that I feel every time I see a photo of the Mars moon Phobos: a sense of “damage to the face” somehow. (I’ve actually got that as data a couple times in sessions on Phobos.)

OK.

Some time ago (a few months maybe? I have no time sense) over at TKR’s space in the Dojo Psi, Marv Darley tasked people on what the Sphinx looked like originally. Unfortunately I missed that mission, which bummed me out, as I found that an interesting question. I thought maybe I’d have to task myself on that someday, but then I forgot about it.

(Later, update: I went to grab a screenshot of the TKR mission page of his task just for a little image here, and I can’t find it. Did he not do it? Did it disappear? Did I hallucinate this entire thing? I swear, sometimes my memory is so weird. It reminds me of when I was a kid and had a rather hard time figuring out whether things had happened or I had merely dreamed them happening.)

OK.

So a few weeks ago or so I was doing a session and for the third time I got an “icon” data. Now, this is something special I want to talk about on the firedocs blog, if I ever get photoshop of any version functioning bootleg on this computer. Suffice to say it is a really specific “feeling” when data comes through like this, and of the two I’d had previously, the icon amazingly, succinctly ’summed up’ the shapes and somehow even their dynamic.

I wish I could put into words how this feels inside, not only the clarity of the shape, but the super sense of “sharp contrast clarity” of the edges of the shape, like the most high-resolution clear edges of an icon/logo you can imagine. I could only sketch them at the time of the sessions but I want to make what I actually saw-felt-etc. in session and then show it with the feedback so people can see what I mean.

Anyway, so in the session, I get this very clear flash of a hawk-head, like that Horus thing in Egyptology, and a real focus on this head in the sense, like it was important.

Then I get a graphic-icon data: A bird with outstretched wings so its real obvious, like a stylized Phoenix made with lots of these little shapes, all the same shapes, like one of those art things created by spraying paint into a cut-out-template, I’m having a mental block on the word right now. It actually reminded me vaguely of a pic not uncommon on the hoods of ‘firebird’ cars in the 1970s I think it was, but a little bit different, and I thought during the session, that’s probably why I’m getting it as icon-data, because in my mind this ties into a logo.

I sense there is something on the head, and wings. I didn’t get a body sense clearly in the session, and yet, I did have a sense I recorded of a larger solid-body creature that had wings, “like a griffin but not” was how it felt and I think that was the data in session. You know, big solid body, but wings, bird-head, like some super magical ancient creature.

But it’s got that’s graphic-icon feeling, which is really clear and strong, and I get SO EXCITED because so far, the other two times I had that, the data was just incredibly succinct with it and I’m thinking, that’s so fantastic! I can’t wait to see what the target might be! I bet whatever it is, this data is awesome for it.

I’m working from my envelope pool which was made like 8 years ago of around 800 targets, but now has about 500 left, including several bizarre off-the-top taskings that I’ve completely forgotten by now but sometimes stumble on (and usually think, “What the hell was I thinking when I tasked this?!”), but I can’t even think of what could possibly match something like this.

The target feedback turned out to be an old photo of the sphinx.

This wouldn’t be the first time I have wondered about something in a target (for example, how a crop circle was made) and then when I happened to get that target, actually described what I had previously wondered about — I think that this is like subconscious self-tasking in a way.

But I was so bummed on feedback, because I thought: it makes no sense. Why would I get a hawk’s-head for the sphinx? Surely it could never have had anything like that, whatever it might have had, surely it wasn’t that. After all, it has the body of a cat. Aren’t there somewhere, some feline bodies that have Rams’ heads or something? Probably that’s what it had. And where on earth would I get the idea of the wings, I wondered. Did that just go with the hawk-head symbol? It didn’t feel like it. I still had the griffin-like-but-not-that overlay.

Oh well.

Ya never know. Ya just move on.

Today I was wondering what to task for the TKR Mission. Still half asleep. Idly, I wished I could task the sphinx’s original look, based on my session, then realized I couldn’t as it’d likely be a tasking thoughtform since I already had something in my head. Then I remembered that Marv had already done that anyway. Doh.

But since I was sitting there, out of curiosity I typed into google — I was on the ‘images’ search at the time — hawk head feline wings griffin, or something like that. I didn’t actually expect to find that weird a combo, I just thought it might be interesting to see if there was anything that associated griffin with the hawk or feline concept mostly.

Google is becoming a metaphysical tool. :-)

I glanced through the various horus pics idly, and suddenly — there was a creature in a drawing that had the head of a bird, with something on top, wings, the body of a feline, and appeared to be a ‘griffin-like’ creature. “Like a griffin, but not.”

I literally just sat here at my computer staring at it, completely speechless.

I had no idea such a thing existed. My skeptical mind says any info existing in the world I could have been subconsciously exposed to, ok fine, but consciously, I am certain I was not aware that this existed. I clicked on the picture to see what the page said.

AmericanMonsters had this to say about the creature in the picture:

AXEX

Resembling the infinitely better known GRIFFIN, this animal was said to bear the head and wings of a hawk, both of which were blended into the muscular torso of a large feline.

Most depictions of this ancient animal – which like so many other potentially “real” creatures was included among the pantheon of Egypt’s minor deities – show three, curved appendages resting atop the Axex’s skull. Some researchers have concluded that these adornments bear more than a passing resemblance to the crest of a rooster. This animal has also been associated with the winged British scavanger known as the OPINICUS.

I think this is my guy. I really do. Man! That’s a trip.

Never heard of it till now. It doesn’t seem possible the sphinx used to have wings, though how the hell would I know. It’s enough of a stretch trying to imagine it having a hawk’s head for goodness sake.

Now I am really interested to know more about Axex. When I get time I’ll see what I can find.

Update (later): I did a quick search on sphinx and I actually found a pic of a “Greek Sphinx” that has wings. Maybe that’s not so unusual as I thought.

.

Long ago when I wrote Bewilderness, I said in the narrative something like,

I psychoanalyzed myself only until I realized I was obviously a lunatic, at which point I concluded I was just giving myself a complex and might as well stop.

I’ve been kind of in denial of viewing the last couple days even though I want to, and I keep thinking about it, and I miss it so much for not having done nearly enough of it lately. I’m carefully avoiding info on TKR’s latest mission so I can squeeze in viewing the target before I expose myself to talk about it…I missed the deadline by a mile thanks to being simultaneously in interest-but-avoidance.

I need therapy.

Meanwhile, I’ve been thinking about the whole archetype vs. session thing. You know, I’m not 100% sure I can honestly say that getting accurate surface data is more important to me than an experience I feel touches my soul and amazes and inspires me. Calabrese called this “process vs. product” and I think that is a decent way of putting it.

I find that the more I view, the more the process starts to mean more to me. The more that a decent data-session with a poor “experiential factor” is a disappointment, while a lousy data-session with a great “experiential factor” feels like a consolation, and usually like it was well worth the effort regardless of the product result.

I feel that this is contrary to RV as a focus. I feel that in fact, I have watched this exact tendency take down quite a number of potential viewers over the years, who got far too involved with the “woo-woo fascinative” aspect of viewing and far too little involved with the “staying in protocol and staying practical” aspect.

But it calls me. Do you know that I have been “deeply dreaming” about Mars in various ways for the last decade? Why? I have no idea. I dream of standing on its surface, in cities that feel so old it is a tangible quality, and inside me I feel this terrible longing, as if it’s something I miss. I have semi-ordinary dreams, often involving one of my best friends, where for one reason or another we have to travel there. I had a series of “programmed dreams” that involved it and apparently the future. For that matter, I even think about it a lot. Too often. It bothers me. Like I need to understand something, I want to, it feels important.

I sound like Courtney Brown. That makes me feel vaguely suicidal.

Am I watching the gradual devolution of my own “psychological balance”? I don’t feel unbalanced; I just feel unnaturally drawn to “experiential” RV and sometimes, specifically, to Mars, although I admit that since Ganymede and an old bizarre session related to Titan, all planets hold interest for me. I feel as if internally I am having a real dilemma.

It seems like the more intuitive I get, the more my session experiences are interesting, yet in the process of being interesting, often fail to be particularly productive, which IMO makes the data-collection process into, well, a different process altogether. RV isn’t about spiritual evolution it’s about data collection. That is RV’s glory, that is why it isn’t buried in all the religious and occult and mystic BS that traditionally psi work has been. The whole “psychic functioning” that is the core of RV is by far the most interesting part for sure, but that isn’t RV, it’s just one of the core components. The field of RV is filled with people ranging from miseducated to outright lunatics, and a great deal of where I see this breakdown happening is in the area of RV protocol: when the data collection product becomes less a priority than the psychic experience. So how could I of all people feel like this, when I am so aware of the problem?

I once wondered, after watching Art Bell’s psychology seem to disintegrate before our ears, if remote influence was well-functioning enough in some para-gov’t agenda to literally ‘affect’ people likely to have an influence in the field via the media or whatever. I mean, my much-former long-ago guru wrote a book I consider 99.9% fiction, although the reinvention surely made history and self image more fun. The whole field seems rife with a total disconnect from reality, to the point of it being a downright worrisome pathology. I realize everyone has their own subjective perception, but there is being an individual, and then there is just being nuts. Come on.

Yet if I have a pointless data session but talk to Ganymede, I think that’s ok? What part of that is ok? Wasn’t the data session the point of it all? And what’s with the still getting “experiential data” even after I know what the target is? That’s a psychic thing. (Didn’t I spend a lot of money on methods training so I could say I was a viewer and not a psychic ha-ha-ha.) I guess what I’m concerned about is that my session was lousy and I don’t care. Because the experience means more to me.

I want to care. I need to care. CARING about session data is critical to obtaining it — and caring about the protocol which separates mere ‘experience’ from ‘validation’ is pretty critical too.

It’s like my priorities are shifting underneath me. And I see it, and it terrifies me, and yet I still can’t seem to stop it.

(I edited this a few times ’cause I kept remembering stuff. That’s the thing about the “experiential” bit–it can contain so MUCH info by the time you write it down that you lose it. This is one reason for writing ‘during’ RV — although I think that is overdone sometimes — but the act of writing tends to interfere with experience at times so it’s always a bit iffy on the decision.)

Was doing a tandem with a friend tonight.

The focus goes well, anchoring and feeling ‘in the center’. I’ve been getting all lovey with IG more than usual lately so I attribute it to that.

The archetype arrives and he is a very serious looking, tough, wiry, asian man of middle age. I have a visual flash of a big inset circular shape with something high in the middle. I say my spiel to him about the plans and take his hands. I ask what he has for me. He reaches to a pendant of some symbol I don’t recognize and he yanks on the cord and it comes off in his hand, except somehow he ‘yanked it out of his chest’ too as an overlay to that, and he tied it behind my neck. I look at IG. “Don’t let me forget to take this off when we’re done,” I say, remembering an old experience where the blonde-man-me of The Four realized that “chains equals prisoner” and a commitment of sorts when that symbol-experience happens.

I don’t know what to give him, and ask myself what energy feels right, and it’s some combination of “stalker” and “awareness” of a rather dark kind, ninja-like. I put the energy ball in his solar plexus which seems made for it and I ask IG to weave us. He weaves us, and the merge feels physically weird. Very slightly like the old over-merge with the target of McQueen felt, but not nearly as strong. I’m kind of impressed.

So we begin, and I focus. Before I can ask for anything I keep repeatedly seeing the face of this specific asian man, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen him in real life but he seems pretty clear and repetitive. “Is this someone you know?” I ask the target, and it disappears. I ask the target if he wants me to lead first, him, or both. He decides he wants to see what it’s like. So: Target Lead.

“Tell me something about the target.” I get nothing.

Then a “scary man,” I can’t describe it more than that, appeared and held out his hand to me. I took it, and allowed him to ‘pull me into it’ and now I’m elevated as if I am kneeling on some kind of roof. It’s outside, in a hot dry environment, with an insanely blue sky above. There are stone structures all around me, but not like euro-stone, more like the tan-brown-red arabic or asian stone which is literally part of cliffs and rocks and things, like stuff carved into cliffs and caves. I have a couple of flashes of overlay of curving shapes I associate with artistic architecture such as the Moors.

“Tell me something important about the target.” I have the sense that “the target takes me more seriously now.” As if the archetype somehow respected me more. I have a flash of a caucasian man with tousled shoulder length hair, middle aged, handsome, who grins at me just a little and disappears. I wonder if that is like the target translating approval into terms he feels I would best relate to.

I see a shape like a round circle or wheel, and near one side is an area that draws my focus. The shape is turning or spinning, in motion but my focus stays with that one part of it.

“Tell me something ELSE important about the target.” A very odd sense like a heavy stone pyramid, the very stepped sort (not like egypt but like south America), but it is literally “on the shoulders of” a man, very heavy, as if “the man is carrying the weight/energy of the pyramid” somehow, like a symbol. I don’t know what it means.

Then I see something, like the whole land itself was ball-shaped and turning, and something ’shoots up into the air’ from the ground, in a sequence, at the same time that impacts from something come in from the outside as if someone were shooting at it. Very dynamic motion, turning, but hard to ‘get’.

I re-center myself in THE target, reminding myself it’s about the current target, which I will shortly have feedback on, etc.

“What matters MOST about the target?”

I am standing at the end of a rectangular walkway of stone. Each side has a high side of stone. It’s outdoors, blue sky, with a door at the end. I stand there for a minute, then feel that if I want the info, I must pursue it. I dash down the stone ground and grab the big handle on a wooden door set into the big stone (cliff-like) wall. The door doesn’t open. I throw my shoulder against it hard and imagine forcing it open, and it opens, and I rush in and slam the door behind me.

It’s pitch black. Then a ‘flare’ of light arrives to illuminate only one thing, an old man who appears to be in a room but I can see nothing else. Then he morphs into a different old man. Then into something I can’t make out. Then a few other things. “I get it,” I say. “The old man is not the point apparently.” Just then I had a sense of ‘red and white stripes’ although I didn’t see anything, and then some kind of turning, flying weapon came out from the darkness and hit him, and then something else happened, and he looked bizarre for a moment, and then his body fell.

But as his body fell, a part of him seemed to “rip out of the inside of him” and remained, which looked different I might add, like a different person, and turned to look at me. “Um, target, dude you’re with me right? I’m safe right? IG? I’m safe, right??” I said, suddenly feeling more than a little nervous.

The man motioned with his head to follow him and I did, and then found myself in a boat with a few other people, floating, one fellow in back with a pole, inside a cave it felt like, like deep inside some area, with overlays of like disney’s old pirate of the caribbean theme ride but spookier.

I faced forward and waited. “How long will this take? I have the feeling I’m running out of time,” I said aloud to whichever of the ‘figures’ I thought might be the old man. A man in front, who looked nothing like anyone so far except the archetype itself, looked back at me and said shortly, “It takes the time it takes.”

I shut up, and then considered that this time might be more about my acceptance than anything real, so I imagined that I was fully ok with and one with all this and it was ok to be done, and sure enough, I promptly found we were being helped out of the shallow boat and onto a stone ledge.

A young girl (late teens) appeared to me as if to lead me somewhere. She flashed into a statue of something, like some ancient architectural find of art that has much greater significance than what we assign it, and then back again. A couple of times. As if it was part of who she was somehow. I walked behind her, and it suddenly occurred to me –

– is all of this total fantasy? Yes, I know that often the archetype has NOTHING to do with the target–that’s the norm in fact. I know that often the “archetypal experience” of doing sessions like this is about 9 out of 10 parts of the experience, only 1 being anything resembling session data. I know this is experimental, and I know the point of this is actually more about the archetype work than the session data. And I know that it’s an opportunity for my mind and soul to work with me on stuff which may be several levels removed from whatever I’m doing on the surface.

But, that doesn’t change the fact that I feel pretty moronic. All the sudden I feel as if the target is something simple, mundane, even kinda dumb, and here I am having this major ‘experience’ related to it. I wonder if the experience is just bored fantasy on another level. The girl turns back to me briefly, and I have the feeling that she is thinking at me something that equates to me being slightly shallow and really having no-freaking-idea what’s really going on here which is much bigger than my little practice RV session. That sobers me up a little bit.

I also have the sense that being wrong is sort of not the point in this world; it’s a “wax on, wax off” or “bigger picture” situation where my “learning to trust and allow and understand this interior kind of experience” means a great deal more than some surface-point of data for this particular practice session. I feel an inner dilemma already, about the competition between the archmed and the RV, of course.

But just then my tandem buddy called because my time was up. Wow! 30 minutes just flew by. I never even had the chance to do MY-lead viewing led alone the mutual let alone wrap it up.

Well so it’s time to go get feedback. I’m afraid to look. I’ll go through it seriously with IG and my woven archetype though. I think part of this process requires that, no matter what.

***

The feedback: The big wall of niagara falls. Nothing but cliff-wall and water in this photo.

I have no idea what any of it means. I suppose I should have finished the meditation!

***

So to wrap things up I went back into the meditation where I left off. I was intending to “imagine” myself in the situation where I left, officially thank everyone and imagine IG pulling me out of it and that would be that. I never — never, except the semi-recent session on Ganymede — have any ‘relationship’ with the target after feedback as far as new-data/experience goes. This is because I’m very logical in some respects and one reason I so admire RV is “the total blinding with feedback”: I don’t want to know ANYTHING about the target; and, once I have feedback, as far as I’m concerned it’s over, period, anything after that is just sheer imagination I am sure, so that is that.

But when I imagined myself back there, the young woman seemed quite present as she had before, and walked ahead of me so I followed, through what seemed to be interior caves, and then finally through one area that led into a huge, really huge and deep, sort of cavern. Very irregularly shaped though. She motioned for me to walk down to this one area and sit down so I could look over it all, and I did so.

Looking down, I thought: wait, why can I see it so well? Caverns that feel this “interior” should be dark, yes? There were literally lights, like artificial lights, all around parts of the bottom in the distance, and even a sense of people down there, which I hadn’t consciously noticed because that’s just such a normal thing in my world (people and lights). But then I thought, wait a minute. I have SEEN feedback. I KNOW that the target is only a waterfall. OK granted, that IS on a major cliff of sorts. But… how does this relate? Is this just on the way to some other info?

The young woman appeared next to me and roughly translated, thought at me, “No, this is what I was leading you to. This is what you were to see.” I hesitated. I didn’t want to be unkind, but… “But the target is a waterfall,” I said gently. “I’m a little bit confused about how this relates.” She looks at me for a moment silently, and then cocks her head, giving me an overlay of like a bird and then like a bird-statuette, and says (basically), “You said you truly wanted to know the archetype of this target. You really wanted to know all about it, experience it, no matter what. That is a much larger thing than the focus of your picture.”

I thought about that for awhile. Perhaps, in that case, I have my answer regarding RV and archetypes; perhaps archmeds aren’t appropriate done in this way for the process, unless the point of the process is the “experience and inner knowing” as opposed to “data that makes it to the paper,” which is the point of RV.

I suddenly feel such adoration for the young woman. I feel as if this is partly mine and partly the larger target’s, which I am still woven with. “You are so beautiful,” I tell her. “You are fascinating and I want to know you more. Please, would you mind if I tasked myself on you-as-archetype at some point to get to know you better? You are so graceful and lovely and deep-in-soul.” She nearly blushed, in some conceptual way, and nodded agreement. Then she disappeared.

I had the sudden flashback of a previous session from at least a couple years ago. It had been on a cave. After the session and feedback I fell asleep and had such a powerful dream, in which the cave itself was sort of sentient, in a way difficult to describe. It had gold in it, which “grew” into it (I did not know gold did this, sort of, until I mentioned the session publicly and someone responded about that). In the dream there was this native american man, who appeared to be a very, very powerful sort of shamanic fellow, who was somehow bonded to the cave, as if he and the caves of that area were sort-of-one.

Anyway I am getting off topic, but I suddenly made the connection that this is why I had the sense of the young woman, and of the artifact and so on: that she is some ancient native spirit that is somehow bonded with that, and so is one of the “identities” likely to be encountered when psychically working with what seems to us to be merely a ‘location’ or ‘landscape feature’. I recalled that in the boat I had some “overlays” I didn’t really notice at the time that might tie into all this, I need a little more time for all of it to integrate. Like of secret caves behind waterfalls for example and whole worlds of nature hidden from view. Subtle.

I wondered about the giant cavern. It seemed natural and yet also “being built-out by man” artificially. I wondered if, like I’ve sensed more than once “underneath” the USA, there is… “development” of this, currently or in the future. I decided that if I am going to take this seriously, then I have to call the session a complete miss and accept the data as “psychic and symbolic and not on-focus” because if I use an RV model for this, the entire experiential aspect of my process becomes “irrelevant, distracting and wrong.”

Maybe it is the age-old question I often say RV comes down to: “Which is to be Master?” What is more important to me, RV that accurately describes surface physicals and a few concepts/emotions of a very narrow space/time focus, or “truly knowing a larger and deeper understanding” of something in my universe? Because they do not seem entirely compatible. It seems rather like it comes down to one or the other.

But I will continue the archetype work, because I feel it is good for me, interesting, and because I hope that eventually, a better “inner relationship with” lots of things, might result in better surface-data for RV when I need it.

***

One thing I didn’t write or say on purpose initially. When I was wrapping up this archmed I realized that I had been gently running the fingers of both my hands down my face, front and sides, sometimes hair or body, for a few minutes. I mean from the minute I tuned back into it apparently I was, but I didn’t realize it until I was ready to de-weave.

I realized that was odd and had the sense of a Helen Keller target in the Viewer Studios (TKR at the Dojo Psi) where she is running her fingers over the face of a president, Truman maybe?, to get the feel of what he looked like. I felt that the target, let me capitalize that as an identity, the Target, wanted to know more of me, wanted to know what I looked like.

I remembered suddenly that when this first began I had that sense of a physical merge-effect, not the “rush” of a true archetype merge but the “energetically squished-crowded-inside feeling” of a joining, similar but very, very light in comparison, to the one with the McQueen target. I hadn’t had any other oddities through the session but I realized that this certainly qualified as one. Now that this has happened twice, I actually think I will recognize the feeling in the future. It really is a sense that I can only call “spiritual squishing” as if being pressed upon when something else is joining the same space and there’s not much room.

I had to wonder, if I ‘allowed’ myself to ‘project out and upward’ like trance channels talk about, would I be channeling?? I don’t really want to do that frankly. I have enough identity issues already thanks very much.

I tried to find it a picture of me. I went to Psi-Notes to grab a link I sent someone of a pic of me and my kid from a year ago but I was logged in under a different identity so I didn’t have it available. I finally sighed, and told the target inside me, I’m sorry, right now I don’t have a picture or a mirror, but I will try to visualize myself as clearly as I can for you. I worked on doing this. I felt it was somehow most ‘aware’ of the ’sense’ that I had some native american genetics. “Some,” I agreed.

I had the feeling, much as I had with Ganymede, that somehow if I said things out loud or physically saw them or felt them, that the information would come across more clearly to the target.

This is yet again I’ve felt that the target was viewing ME when all was said and done, that the session process done the archetype way was essentially a shared channel of sorts, a two-way empathy.

***

I feel a great dilemma now over the archetype vs. RV aspect. You know, I have these arguments in my head all the time, and I play both points of view. I am just as fierce about maintaining the simple, objective-data, controlled-protocol, match the feedback aspect of RV as I was a dozen years ago when I began this. I am SO grateful that RV took psychic functioning out of the morass of BS that it’s been drowning in since the dawn of time. I feel it’s incredibly important that a very clean focus be kept on that.

That’s one reason these meditations are on this blog, and not on Red Cairo Firedocs — although a few have made it to firedocs, like the Ganymede session, and I’ve considered pulling it at least a hundred times just because I feel like anything more than “just the facts ma’am” doesn’t belong in any public example of “what-is-RV”.

Archetype meditations are not RV. I’m mixing these for a long list of reasons starting with curiosity, and the driving sense plus experience that outside objective reality is actually determined by internal energetic relationships.

When all was over I said to IG, “I would have liked to have written down the info that it was a waterfall. I’m grateful for the experience. I know that what we are doing is NOT just simple-target-data but what is good for me AND the target, what helps us both evolve, etc. etc. — I know that. But at some point before it was over, I would have liked to have gotten the data I went in there for, because you know, that’s the point of RV to begin with. I know I stopped too soon, but psychically and subconsciously I knew what time I had. For that matter, why couldn’t I just have known, right up front, that it was a waterfall?”

IG didn’t say this clearly, but the ‘feeling’ I got was something like this:

Information flows like a river. Every time you consciously absorb awareness of something, you slightly change the course of that river, and you change the “probability set” of what information is likely to come to you next. (I guess this fits in with data-sequence theories, ‘venting’ aol, etc. in RV.) I had the feeling if I had known it was a waterfall right off, that somehow this would have changed me internally and I wouldn’t have been able or likely to have the experience that I did, instead.

I accepted this, telling IG thanks, but it does not resolve my dilemma with myself about “groovy internal experiences” vs. “writing down the basic info” and which-is-to-be-master in my life.

For now, I don’t have much time to view, and everything I do is experimental. But at some point that is likely to change and I may have to make a decision.

Maybe I could come up with another archetype approach that is less, um, impactive and creative. You know, I’ve had some good sessions using this same technique. Normal data collection, this model works fine. It’s just that sometimes it seems like the experiential aspect overwhelms the data, which either becomes ‘trivial’ (even when it is there and accurate) or becomes ignored. So I can’t say it’s the approach, maybe it’s just me; methods both succeed and fail, every method, for every person, after all.

I guess it would be silly to expect my first real approach to be “the answer” to anything except how to ask a slightly better version of the question. Real science is exploration and there’s often lots of trials before something workable with measurable results (let alone consistency) comes about. Probably the same for this.

I got to task TKR’s mission last week. Feedback was yesterday. It was a tasking experiment, or rather, more like a “let it be” kind of approach. I normally believe pretty strongly in a very clear definition of what a target is and the ‘focus’. But this target was an entire situation, with background from years ago, plus recent events, plus current interview (with two people involved). So I simply tasked the viewers to describe whatever they found most interesting about the target, and made the entire thing the target, so they could have feedback on the larger situation.

It’s quite a trip. I’d never read anything like this before. This guy says when he was a kid he had a “merging” experience with a grey alien. Whether or not this happened he obviously believes it did, to the degree that he feels so much “one with it” that he eventually had this plastic surgeon redo his face and head to look more like an alien. I mean, they cut off his ears for godssakes, all kinds of stuff. The feedback (which you’ll have to log into TKR and go to that mission and one of the tasks to get the link to and see in detail) is kind of shocking. Partly that governments would let surgeons do this for “artistic” reasons (!) (this doc is from France).

It got me thinking about the issue of ‘identity’, of course. In a somewhat more normal but still rather unusual social world, we have people who feel they were born the wrong gender, and they have physical surgery to change what they look and feel like. So, in a way, I’m not really sure how this guy differs psychologically, aside from the whole grey-alien thing. I don’t have any reason to doubt his experience, given it sounds like it has profoundly impacted him ever since.

Because the tasking was so ridiculously wide-scope there’s really no way to say who does well vs. poorly on that kind of thing, at least on a detail level. But I thought several of the sessions had some nice info. Bear in mind that because this doesn’t have a specific-clear task with feedback on that focus, it is not qualified within the Remote Viewing protocol; it becomes “psychic work”. Some missions are.

Visit http://www.dojopsi.com/tkr/ and click the box to jump directly to “Missions” on the login page.

Yeah… I know. It has been far too long since I’ve blogged anything anywhere. Especially at this one, which is too weird for even the weirdos I know. If you’re reading this and ever wondered about yourself, now is the time to worry.

It’s one of those things where, had I been blogging, I would have had probably 50 things I could have blogged about, but now somehow I have none. Because it would be like making a big deal of just little things.

So as a way of kind of getting back into occasional blogging again, I thought I would just clean out the recent file drawer so to speak. Which is not all that exciting. But I notice when I go back and read my blogs that what happens on day 10 is often related to what came before, for example. So whatever happened the last week or less is probably going to have some effect on what happens this and next week. So I might as well get it down on virtual paper.

*0*

Alrighty then. First on the front: Archetype meditations for remote viewing.

Now the most interesting thing about this lately is my realization yesterday, when I went back and read this blog’s few entries, that I had completely forgotten just about everything. I mean literally forgotten. Like all the previous experiences on this blog including my 3-stage approach to using archs in viewing, simply never existed.

I noticed about a dozen years ago, for the first time, that my personal version of reality was, at best, unusually creative. This is not something most people admit, even when it’s true. But it really seems to be true for me. It’s not merely that my 11 year old and I, on a daily basis, remember a completely different version of events from as little as a few hours before. (Of course, since she is 11, I blame this entirely on her memory problems. She blames it on mine. By the time she is 13, we will probably both be certain the other is a complete idiot. I secretly suspect she has already decided this about me anyway.)

But it’s more than that. It seems to be that I have an unusually developed ability to forget — and I mean utterly, obliviously forget — radically large portions of my reality if they relate to what you might call “esoteria” or “metaphysics” or anything like that.

If I were as in-denial-forgetful of any other subject the way I am spiritual and psychic stuff, I wouldn’t just lose my car keys regularly, I would forget I had a car. And opposable thumbs. I mean it’s ridiculous.

*0*

13Aug07. Archetype b4 session didn’t have time to be much of anything as I rushed into it. But I found myself intrigued by the session itself, not so much the data as the feel. I got the third experience of “graphic design data” I’ve had. I’ve got to post on this, probably on the firedocs blog when I get time. I had a specific “graphic design” feel, of an “icon”, with a very specific shape. The feeling inside for this kind of data is very subtle yet highly specific. It feels like super clear-cut crystal edges, high resolution, high contrast between two colors, very careful effort. It feels like a “logo” that “represents” the target.

The first two times I experienced this, the shape was incredibly clear in my mind, as it was only 4-5 combined lines. I had the feeling I had seen it before–and yet hadn’t, like some kind of pre-deja-vu. Both times, the shape so dead-on nailed the summarized shape/dynamic of the target (if I could ARV like that even half the time I’d be rich) it was stunning. So I was pretty excited to run into that feeling again.

Except this time, the feeling got a lot more complicated. (Leave it to RV! The minute you know something well, it changes and increases complexity.) This time, the shape was actually something that I thought I might have seen before: a firebird. Or rather, the symbolic iconic representation of a phoenix, except using a ton of separate little shapes to create a sort of graphic mosaic. The shapes were like elongated thinned ovals, pointy at both ends, and the ones at the outside of the wing areas curved upward. After that I got another graphic-like sense; a cylinder that had interlocking elongated triangles of opposite colors, so that the effect was like claws wrapped around something. Then i saw, but didn’t record (I thought I was inventing it, truly), a guy with a bird-head like in the Egyptian stuff. A couple data points later, I saw a key sitting on a big square block/cube of something. I picked it up and a door appeared in the sky. I reached up and unlocked the door, and it opened, and a big bird — like the phoenix — flew out and into my world and then away before I could see anything more.

Not surprisingly, at this point I started to seriously AOL that the target might have something to do with a bird.

Fortunately my data then ceased to have anything to do with that. I had a funky shape, and a sense of “open space/nothingness” between/under it, and yet at the same time, the sense of “a face” being there, as well. I saw a big cliff, like a plateau with a dropoff. Then I saw the plateau with a deep channel carved into it, like out of the rock, narrow at the top but then ballooning into a big area underneath. It seemed to go quite a distance back. Then I got a couple data points pretty specific to “the sun” or some symbol of it. My initial data in the section was all ‘artistic’ and something ‘carved’. Not long in I said, “…a beautiful (manmade?) object, using shapes and contrasts.” Yet somehow I managed to miss entirely the whole carving concept. Ended the session.

The target turned out to be the sphinx. An old pic of it, before today’s modern commercialism, when there is just the sphinx, with its severely mutilated head, and a pyramid in the background. As if to further my ire about not doing nearly as well as I thought I should have on the target, a viewer named teacup promptly did the same target in the galleries on the same day I think it was, and did a better job. That is just SO not fair.

I have no idea what the phoenix symbolism represents. Aside from it, like the Sphinx, being a mythical creature. (Once in a dream I watched these unusually tall people ‘creating’ the sphinx–like giving it life or something. I didn’t see how this could be possible but they indicated that if my bone could have consciousness, why not its stone? They also indicated that they were making it a mate, somewhere far away. I later heard it’s a “legend” that there was another sphinx on the other side of the planet. Who knows.)

I sat there still woven with the target arch, IG with us, looking at the data and the picture trying to grok the connection between these things. I just don’t get it. So maybe that is just off-target. But I’m surprised, given how insanely on target (in the most succinct way) the previous ‘graphic design’ data sessions were. I know that nothing is dependable but I do find that HOW data comes through often seems to have more correlation with its accuracy than any other recognizeable quantity or quality in a session. Oh well. That I missed the repeated references to design carving, and then to the cliff/plateau and carving into the cliff, and didn’t put that together is doh!-material.

15Aug07. Again I rushed through the archmed, forgetting all my glorious plans about this. The data combined for the session covered a few areas:
* A repeated sense of looking down on something, of there being an “up high” (VERY high) place, and then a “down low” place, and the people up high were mercenary and the people down low were totally oblivious to them and/or the fact that they were
* Something elevated, in motion, and that “flies a distance away” being a major part of the target
* I “felt”, “thick, numb, hovering” when at the target
* A sense of banks, money, power
When I asked what would seem most important on feedback I got, “That something split open to show the darkness inside.” That seemed kind of odd.
When I asked for anything the target would like to share as last words it said, “The people and things below are so removed from us, and so unimportant. We are the powerful ones.”
Seriously, I was starting to AOL on aliens on the moon or something just as I was ending the session.
The target was Astronaut Bruce McCandless from the Feb ‘84 NASA pic of him in the “rocket chair” flying around, with the earth seen far below.

Okaaaaaaaaaaaay…. I dunno what to make of that one either. I guess all the emotional components of that must have been off-target, unless there is a lot more to the space program, world banks, and potentially aliens, than I have any idea. Moving on!

Did I mention that I haven’t viewed in awhile. I always totally suck when I re-begin so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

16Aug07. The archetype was odd and had “empty eyes”. But archs usually have zip to do with the actual target and I get horrible AOL if I assume they do, so I ignored that. I hated the session. I felt yucky all through it. I felt that sense of “I hate this environment. Everything about this just disgusts me.” that I sometimes get for really trashy, violent, depressing ghetto environments. All the data was about a structure and maybe vehicles. The target, although those were at the periphery, was focused on a dead Korean war US POW, his corpse lying on the side of the dirt road.

I felt badly for not making better contact. Seems sure to me that this target might want to share something of itself. I will get it again eventually as it’s in my envelope pool twice, everything is, and I still have hundreds left to wade through in that. I spent some time with the target (still woven together) and IG after, working on understanding why I didn’t get the target in my data, as it seemed I had avoided it. I’ve had lots of dead everything before and not avoided it, so I don’t think it is any issue with death as data. Even my after-FB attempt to ‘get rapport’ with the target was interfered with by my emotional reaction of dislike, anger and disgust. Oh well.

16Aug07. Archmed was so fast I don’t remember anything. I gotta quit that. Initial data was “frenzied, frenetic, ultra energetic” and I couldn’t do ideograms because everytime I did one, my whole body abreacted as if I were trying to leap off where I was sitting. Then I got four big parallel thick-lines, “parallel components” I called them, manmade structure. That’s the end of target contact. The rest had nothing to do with the target… it was physical data, I just can’t figure out how it could relate so I assume it doesn’t. The target was a scaffolding from 1960 that had about 125 people at the Indianapolis 500 and it collapsed, falling forward, and killed a bunch. Looked like a giant industrial shelving unit so I guess the parallel thing was ok data. Still. Session on the whole sucked. Wasn’t very long.

18Aug07. I didn’t write down anything on the archmed. Need to start doing that, prior to session. The session had an elevated rounded thing, with letters or something around the front, AOL marquee, which was in the target so that’s fine. I believe I got the general location (water, shore, city, sky, focus is the city) ok. A big circle with a thick border which fairly well describes the shape in the picture so that is ok too (this is diff than the circle in the other direction that was the marquee). Had a nifty “mini-movie” but as is not unusual there was zero way to tell if any of it had anything to do with the target–anyway, it didn’t relate to the focus, which is what matters. Alas, humidity re-sealed a used target envelope, so I had no target. Fine, I said, I’ll just get one for this session; no big deal to me, but it took me four envelopes to find one with a picture for feedback. I consider that a somewhat blown protocol as a result.

20Aug07. Archmed was super brief. Arch distinguished himself though. Every few seconds he’d break out in a little dance, looking at me, like he was teasing me, teasing about being ‘on display’ as my target. It actually made me giggle. I ended up feeling much loving about it before the session. Which, by the way, had not a single thing to do with the target in my opinion (I’d have to call on symbology VERY heavily to come up with anything), which was Jesus. No, I did not task myself this. The new Taskerbot lets TANDEM viewing be done out of someone’s tbot Grab Bag as well as practice, and that one belonged to the other viewer. I am not fond of that target at all. I’ve had esoteric experiences with that identity that were mind blowing but so far in RV that’s twice I’ve missed that target entirely.

Sucking at RV is so demoralizing. Everytime I start getting pretty good at it, I end up dropping it abruptly. That isn’t coincidence, I know.

Knowing doesn’t help though.

Rykah got a pair of Calvin Klein deep wine (red) glasses. She can now actually see half the world she could not before. She loves them. And she looks adorable in them, truth be told. Thank the gods that somewhere between her father and my genetics, she got a blend that is nothing like either of us.

Last night she came into my room and sat on my legs facing me and said very seriously to me, “Mom, I’m going to tell you something about me that you don’t know.” Sure this was going to be some major revelation, I was appropriately serious. “What is it, honey?” I ask in my best you-can-tell-me-anything voice.

“My favorite candy flavors are blue rasberry and sour apple,” she says with great sincerity. I pause. “Wow,” I say, while searching for what to actually SAY. “Cool. I’ll keep that in mind.” Then she wandered off to do something else. You realize that when she decides to tell me something of monumental import, she will probably mention it, in passing, while running out the door to play someday.

Off and on for — well, her whole life — I have always tried to make psi seem like a normal, no-brainer, no-big-deal kind of thing. We live many lives, we ’sit in on’ other identities when we dream, we leave our bodies when we sleep and sometimes when awake, when people die it’s only their body that dies of course, dreaming things that happen is pretty common, deja vu is our memory of future-awareness, and being deliberately psychic like in remote viewing is just another normal thing, it just takes more work to get the hang of for some people… like mom.

The other day, enthused after overhearing me talking to my tasker about a kind of data I’ve gotten a couple times that I think is cool (a graphic icon that is representative of the primary form+dynamic of the target), she decided SHE wanted to do RV. “Naw, it’ll bore you, it’s more an adult thing,” I told her offhandedly, which was sure to make her insist she absolutely had to do it right this moment and nothing I could ever say or do would change that.

She wanted to start with my envelope target pool. I didn’t think that was such a great idea. It was a pool of nearly 1000 that I made back in 2000, there are probably at least 700 left. The pool has literally everything including some pretty grim and grisly tasks here and there — but not that many statistically, compared to the whole pool. She was upset I wouldn’t just let her grab one and try and I didn’t want it to be a drama so I said ok, fine, they may not be appropriate but we’ll try a few.

She wrote down person or people, a few colors. The target was a gorilla. She wrinkled her nose in disgust–it took one session to make even my ten year old detest animal targets, something most of us had to do a lot of before we took that view!–and then she tried another.

blue. puffy. water. a few other things. The target is a heavily blue photo of a giant air balloon taking off over a lake and mountains. So she tried another.

A train. A… tunnel or something like that. Some other data. The target is a train, or part of one, and the destroyed stationhouse nearby (war pic). I suggested she stop but she wanted to do more. So she tried another.

She thinks it’s a plane crash. A lot of blood. She sees at the other end of inside a plane a tall man, black top to bottom in black-bandages, with a long shape in his right hand, like a crutch. I think to myself, this seems like her archetype for death (with me it’d likely be a skeleton with a rifle; with some, a black hooded figure with a scythe). There are people all over she says. She thinks something bad happened there. The target is the definitely losing trench of a civil war battle. With an environment rather similar to what you might get in a plane actually: looking down a row, a fairly contained shape with high sides, toward the other end, and bodies all over the place mostly to each side. “OK, no more target pool!” I say, breathing a sigh of relief that she does not seem upset about this (her taste for violence and gore even in media is tougher than mine for sure), and I tell her she has to use the dojo from now on.

So she registers as ‘Rinnie’ in the dojo, and does a session. I tell her not to make it public unless she feels it is worth looking at, as otherwise it mostly just dilutes the list of what people wade through and then sessions that could really get useful input are more likely to get missed. She’s delighted that she gets a couple colors right at least, and posts it, and is more delighted that she gets some comments on it. “Valentines,” is what my buddy Eric once called RV Galleries “comments” on a session, and I agree, they feel like that. ;-) So she does another.

She gets a few points close enough and she posts that. She gets a few more comments and she’s delighted. That seemed to pretty much exhaust her interest in the subject, so whether or not we will see her after this, who’s to say. I have no interest in pushing or frankly even encouraging her to psi, given how it messes with the stability of pretty much everybody on some level eventually. She’ll choose it on her own or she won’t. No matter to me really.

Which reminds me that when I began in RV I was the product evangelist, but now I am completely UNevangelistic about the topic. (My web work is based on providing options for people already interested, more than recruiting new folks.) In fact I recall that many years ago, I argued fiercely with a couple friends who felt that probably only about 1/2 of 1% of the population was all that appropriate for it. Now I think that number might be a little high. “There is nothing like working HARD for a living to make a man a conservative,” is a political saying; it sort of applies to RV too I think. I get less willing to assume on people — or on any part of the process — by the day.

Sometimes she tells me that I know nothing of her life or perspective, that I can’t possibly understand what it’s like to be her. I try not to giggle over that, because I’m sure she is right, but that usually only comes up in moments of angst, like why I won’t let her wear makeup to school for 5th grade, even though most the kids in her class do. The generations — and their bodies — get older when younger, by the year.

But it’s another day in suburbia. School pictures came out, progress reports came out, and they both went well for her in my opinion. Someday she’ll look back on this and I wonder what she will think, of her mom who spent her whole waking life outside work and kid on RV for a dozen years before the kid decided to try it, and probably for a dozen more years at least after.

She got glasses so she can see the world around her, finally… and she got a dojo login so she can see, well, the world that is not around her, too. Maybe by the time she is 21 she’ll be doing ‘deep mind probes’ (…that term makes me laugh out loud) the way most of us sing in the shower.

I had a long time with Inner Guide (IG). In short I expressed how I wanted to be more aware, more open to psi, how I wanted to genuinely pursue it consistently, and so on.

He agreed to help me… but at one point he leaned close to me and said, “There will come a day when you will be asking me to stop this. When you will be asking me to curtail it, to protect you from it. If you commit to this now, I will not prevent it from happening or take it back again later. I will instead help you to deal with the effects of it.”

I felt kind of wide-eyed at that. But I said that was fine. I asked him to proactively help me deal with anything that is a threat to my consistent viewing.

The archetype had three eyes, three arms on each side (6 total), and three legs. Like some kind of vedic deity, male and standing.

I imagined the rain of love pouring down upon us, while I imagined the energy of love at max intensity coming out of my center and going into his and healing him of anything and everything. Eventually his head was normal and then finally his arms and legs except a ghostly reminder and then finally that was gone too.

During the process I kept having diff versions of the same visual dynamic: something is thrown to the ground, something small, and it kind of skids/rolls there.

I asked him to provide me something on or in my body that would be an energy trade. He created three eyes, like he’d had, and placed them all inside the center of my third-eye chakra, right in the center of my head but slightly higher, and said something like,

‘May you always see what is, what was, and what could be.’

I thanked him, and then I sort of realized, wait a minute…! He is addressing what I did with IG! Not just him as a target!

And he replied to my thought, ‘Every target has the potential to help you evolve.’

Wowwwww. I was so stunned. I had never once thought of this.

I have done archmeds with the archs of targets for the sake of better rapport or information. Never because I thought that unique target arch might have some ability to actually help me personally, with my RV or my awareness or more.

I looked at IG and said, “Oh my god. Is this true? This is TRUE?!” and he said,

“For certain. Every part of the universe holds the maximum potential. ‘All numbers are infinite’, remember.”

I felt so amazed… in the best, this-is-so-important way, that I dropped the energy ball I was making for the archetype and just threw my arms around him. I felt pulses of suffusing waves of love coming through me for him, as I thought at him thank you, thank you so much, SO much, SO MUCH!! The energy was great since we were merging as it was happening I think. Not fully mind you. But a bit.

Then he stepped back, and I told him I would ask for him later, sometime when in a session on this target, and that he could share ‘through’ me whatever information about himself he wished. We did like a small japanese bow and then he vanished.

I wanted to view but I felt it was important I write this down.

If I were a tree, I’d be able to count my rings, and see clearly the phases where drought or flood or other crises affected me.

I’m starting to feel like that is just as real for humans, we just can’t see it nearly as well. And one thing that would be sharply apparent to any botanical-psychic researcher would be the times I stepped away from viewing for a few weeks or more.

The rings would show the severe “pulling back” of a psyche, as if severe drought had set in for awhile. Then it would show the painful, frustrating process of “recovery” over time.

A viewing expert would say with insight, “Ah, yes. When you try to view and nothing comes. When you feel the tensing in your lower stomach as if of fear. When you somehow feel as if such a process ought to be impossible. When you have lost the ability to “dive” and lost the belief-system props, built and maintained every day like the muscle of the psychic body, that “hold the door open” for psi to happen.”

It’s agony. It’s like tearing off a bandaid that is pulling out hair.

And it’s all my fault. I got busy, I got distracted, it wasn’t convenient, I didn’t force it, and now I am starting ALL OVER AGAIN — as always. As a million times.

And I will progress at unnatural speeds once I start, making more apparent my length of experience, but I will be nearly retarded at it initially, and I will have lost some of my data-type progression that I had improved at most recently. So I’ll be mostly incompetent for a month, if I view daily, and then finally my belief system and the daily practice will click in and I’ll start changing back to the viewer I used to know.

But it is So. Damned. Hard. When the ‘restart’ period comes.

I don’t know why I do this to myself. I know very well how much my left brain belief systems lean against psi every single day and how important it is that I force that door to stay open with constant viewing.

And yet I keep letting it lapse. Usually just as it’s getting way more interesting than it’s ever been. And then I have to start all over again. And I’m looking at my lab book waiting for the slightest impression of anything to arrive.

It doesn’t help to know I deserve it.

I haven’t seen Nero in awhile. Then again, my sleep schedule’s been so bad, my work so mind numbing, and my prayer and meditation so nonexistent, that should not surprise me.

I’m so ticked right now. I did the TKR Mission this week, something I don’t often get to do, and the task turned out to be Travis Walton’s location when he was abducted.

Now wouldn’t you think, given some of my Bewilderness experiences are highly similar to his in some respects, that I would be GREAT at this? I mean, who else should be better at it? But Noooooooo.

First I sat down to do the session and was chronically interrupted by a song, to the degree I had to stop viewing altogether for the day. It is rare that I can’t keep my mind quiet and this was ridiculous. The line was from a disney movie no less (how embarrassing) where it goes,

“It means no worries, for the rest of your days! It’s our problem-free… philosophy… Hakuna Matata!”

I know. It’s just too stupid to believe.

The next two times I tried, I was sure I was awake enough. I was awake plenty all through a brief relaxation. The minute I went to start writing, I passed out abruptly. So much for that.

This morning I was wired, and drank a cold soda, and left the blanket off sitting up on my bed with my computer as I was kinda cold and that helped too, to be SURE I could not fall asleep.

And I couldn’t do it! I was totally in denial. I tried. I knew that the denial was me, but I chalked it up to the fact that it’s been a little while since I viewed, I took a break, and I figured it was just typical internal resistance to viewing.

It didn’t really occur to me that it would be internal resistance to the specific target, since I would not have guessed that I was actually resistant to anything in that way.

I’m totally fascinated with Walton’s account, mostly because I pointedly lived in a cave concerning UFO media — avoided it like the plague, thought I was just ‘more rational’ than people who didn’t, haha! — and by the time I actually read an account about him online, I was dumbfounded by the elements my own spontaneous esoteric experiences had in common with some of what he described. Not all, but some.

And so here was my chance. My Big. Grand. Chance. To actually get an inside psychic look at that situation — I’ve really done very few esoteric targets to be honest — and I can’t believe it… my session was lousy!

I know I’m a whiner. But I wanted to do well on a target like this. I’m so aggravated!

I’m finding, thanks to my tasker in part, that I seem to have more of a ‘connect’ with high-tech (particularly ‘energy’-based) targets than some other kinds. I’m not sure why some viewers are better with some types of targets than others. I’m not a techie (I barely if that qualify even as a programmer; definitely not a high-tech sort). I can’t think of any logical reason why this kind of info would come through for me, and yet so often, it has. And it’s really fun, and it feels really cool.

I think I’m going to start collecting high tech targets for my tBot pool. I’ll have enough tasks in there that the random assign is still doubleblind. It would be interesting to do a whole series, a couple of times, and see if I can explore that more.

As always, when I wait too long between blogposts, I don’t know where to begin.

Where was I when I got distracted?? “Life is what happens while you are making other plans,” as the saying goes.

I’ve done minimal viewing of late, not to mention I’ve sucked on keeping up with the Radical group. Fortunately most of them are already serious viewers, and from the email digest I just saw, they are not sitting around waiting on me fortunately!

There is no excuse. If I wanted it to be a priority it would be. Of course, even parsing down the things I’m interested in, to about 3 things instead of a million, I haven’t time for them all. Damn but working for a living sure wipes out the majority of waking life… a pretty big testament to why one ought to do something for a living that is basically what they want to do anyway. (Several unwritten books are pulsing in the binary cosmos at this very moment going ‘Yeah!’)

Have had the same experience on my last few sessions as I was beginning to have more often in daily work just before life wigged out a few weeks ago though. First, that at a certain point in, I’m hit by a sort of “condensed intensity of data quantity” that I can’t parse. I know it sounds silly to write it that way but it’s the most descriptive way I can think of to analogy the experience. (Within minutes of reading this someone will invent a new phrase-acronym for it.)

There are a few different ways I can feel this. The first is as-if it is going ‘near’ me. For example, like it’s flashing by and there is no way I can catch it. A bit like, “here it — wait, there it went!” Like I am inside, and it is outside the window flashing past.

The second is as-if it is presenting itself to me. For example, like it’s springing up “within my absorption sphere” (…whatever that is. I mean it’s not outside me, but within my understanding area) and I could normally perceive it, in the ‘place’ I’m sensing it, but there is just way too much, too dense, too fast, so it isn’t that “it went by and I couldn’t catch it” but rather, that “I have it, I just can’t get any kind of grasp on it at all.”

The third is as-is if it going ‘through’ me. For example, like it literally got into me on some level, all of it, and then my body is trying to “bring it through” the physiology, but utterly failing because there is just way more data there than I can pull through me all at once, like it’s running into some kind of bottleneck-effect. I had that shortly before ‘The Steve Experience’ as I now jokingly call it, in a previous session.

Other kinda new stuff, had in the last dozen sessions almost consistently, but not much before that. Like amazing visuals. I mean, LONG visuals, like I am sitting there going, “Wow, this is incredible! This is like total VR!” as it goes on — nothing vague, no microsecond blip. I don’t know what the heck that is! I mean technically that’s supposed to be incredibly rare. And usually wrong. Yet so far (not counting the mutant sandworms session hahahaha) the data’s been GREAT and has suggested I’m taking the literal experience-perspective of a person in the target. Similar to the experiences I sometimes have where I perceive someone else in an amazingly literal way, the focus is utterly clear, but there is like zero peripheral somehow.

Also, have had: a sense of ’standing in the environment’ of the target (and I don’t always record it but so far that’s been good info). I really never had that before. Sometimes I’d have a single impression that was aesthetic, but not the whole “I’m standing on the street in a very grey industrial section of a city” sort of feel.

And weird stuff. Like in a practice session the other day, almost interfering, I feel I’m “in” a library, I sense something local to my area, and I turn toward the aisle and a little girl, with real short hair, is there, and she’s looking at me like she wants to say something. And I suddenly realize she is a ghost. Then I’m out of it thinking, “I know that is not part of the target!”

Why does it hit me, if it isn’t part of the target? Is my subconscious just so intrigued it’s looking around for stuff? Is my opening up to data of that nature somehow making me more ‘visible’ to … ah … ‘energetic constructs or identities’ of that sort?

I was nearly tempted to see if the tiny city I was sitting in when I did the session had a library but I decided that would be taking it a little too far.

You know, I don’t want to end up totally nuts like Brown or Dames or other people who’ve clearly remote viewed several too many aliens (out of protocol to boot, haha). I don’t mind getting the weird stuff — frankly my totally spontaneous life was WAY weirder prior to my getting into Remote Viewing — but if it isn’t on target, then I’m not sure there is any point to it.

I think it’s easy to get distracted by the novelty of stuff like that and lose the focus of why one is in session… much like some people start out looking for spiritual growth and end up obsessing on crystals or something instead, as if that’s any kind of replacement. If the girl was in the target potentially, in any way, it’d be one thing, but I don’t think she is. (No FB yet.)

I was re-thinking recently following a post on McMoneagle’s blog about remote viewing visuals. You know how you’re going along and you’re getting info and no matter what it is, you don’t really know if the data compared to the target is going to turn out to be literal or symbolic, right or wrong, etc. You get what you get, as Calabrese used to say (I wonder where she is these days), and the more you want it to be one thing, or need it to be another thing, the more you’re going to screw it up, AOL it to death, or just flat out prevent better target contact by being neurotic instead of letting it flow.

McMoneagle was talking about letting it flow, simply accepting it and communicating it as clearly as you can. He was reminding people that what you see is as likely to be a memory clip or symbol or analogy or whatever, as the actual target itself, so you just can’t take most visuals that seriously — or rather, you do take them seriously, you just don’t assume that you know what they mean, or that they mean exactly what they are. Just because it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck doesn’t mean it isn’t the most un-duck-like thing you’ve ever seen. (I joke about ducks in targets because I’ve only had two and both have been totally weird sessions that had nothing whatever to do with the target duck.)

So I was thinking about this, from an experiential point of view. I’ve talked about this with viewer friends before, it’s a popular topic for kicking around. Joe gave the example of a boat smoothly sailing through the water being symbolic for a relationship going well, as an example of data that seems literally but may be symbolic depending on the viewer. This is a little exasperating though. The outline of viewer angst I tend to have and talk with friends about goes something like this:

1. You may have no clue whether data is literal or symbolic.
2. You are not supposed to care, during session.
3. You care desperately. Reason: there seems little point to getting into the detail of the way that shape curves, if the shape is only part of a ship and the ship is only there to show you symbolically that your target is having a good relationship. Even if it DID help you get more/better concept data on the relationship, it’d also result in a ton of totally wrong/non-literal data sort of ‘mucking up’ the better data.

1. You may have no clue which ‘part’ of something you see is the part that is meaningful to the process at hand.
2. You are not supposed to care, during session.
3. You care desperately. Reason: that 1/8 second flash of information would take you 10 minutes to fully record on paper, and you really only have like a few seconds to write down what matters and move on or get lost in AOL about every detail, so you MUST prioritize one way or another, but didn’t we just say you don’t always know what part of it matters, so…

So then usually with enough consideration of real-life-experience, one meanders around to things like:

1. With proper target contact, it doesn’t matter if it’s literal or symbolic, because you have a ‘feeling’ for what it means.
2. With proper target contact, it doesn’t matter that you get a bundle of reference data, because you have a ‘feeling’ for what part matters most.
3. Most of RV life is working on achieving proper target contact.

…and…

1. Since we don’t always know for sure when we’ve got it (proper target contact), and since that is more a matter of degree than any on/off thing anyway, then we are still left working on how to deal with the good % chunk of the time that we are NOT so well connected (or, “yet”) that we can ‘feel’ intuitively what matters and what things mean.
2. Which brings us back to where we begin. You’re in session, you get data. Do you follow up on given data points for more about them… or let it go because you don’t know if it’s literal or important or the aspect of what you got that matters?

In the end, it seems like over time, remote viewing starts to work more as a side effect than whatever I intended in the first place, by which I mean this:

The more I let it happen, the more I allow symbolic data, the more I APPRECIATE the data I get even when it’s symbolic or other, then the more I tend to “spontaneously” get better data, more advanced data, more detailed data, more literal data.

So while I am being a happy camper about my potentially wild-ass-weird symbolic data, some other part of me, emboldened by how receptive I am, decides to just tell me that it’s a metallic 3-layer composite walled structural object related to high technology, or that it’s a machine shaped like so and if you do this it will do that, or that it’s a man standing in formal wear, or whatever.

So while I am busy not-stressing about it, gradually I’m starting to get the kind of data that I desperately wished for to begin with, but that usually could NOT be deliberately gotten to any great degree, at least not without sufficient wrong data or symbolic-etc. data mixed in. I think it may be the most significant example of the infamous ‘avoid the Lust for Result’ lesson I’ve ever had.

Let’s see, what’s the last session I did. Oh yeah, a Tandem practice in the dojo for TKR. That is really fun, viewing with someone else on the same target. Gets me off my butt to do something even if I’m pretty busy, and is sometimes fun to compare after the fact.

I had a few fairly generic impressions. A strong impression of repeated vertical parallel shapes, lots of them. Then a funky dynamic visual that looked sort of like — but too fast for details — a coffin-shape that rolled over, a lid opened up, and something spilled out of it. This was so fast and so odd though, that I asked myself what part of it mattered, was it what was inside? the motion outward? The opening? The turning? The shape of it? the superbrief concept-overlay of it? –and decided to write down the “rolling over and opening up” part.

Then I had the sense of this shape that I compared to a variety of things such as a tree, a flaring vase or vase of flowers, some fireworks, stuff where there is a smaller bottom and something rising up and flaring out at the top. Got a couple simple shapes, and then had an impression of an area that was set up for people, a long table, chairs, things like that. The only thing clear was seating so I wrote down that, then I was getting more on the initial shape again, it seemed like it had some importance to the target, just couldn’t figure out how. As it was tandem it was time limited and I ran out of time (having spent the first 15 minutes meditating), but just before I ended I had the clear but sudden impression of a man who was dressed very nicely, formally in some way, being present standing in the target. Fine, outta time, moving on.

The target turned out to be a man in formal dress uniform, playing a bugle (there’s my flaring vase shape), looking over a military graveyard, each space with a vertical headstone. The text shows it was part of a big formal ceremony, which means I didn’t consider the chairs/long table wrong as that would be likely on something official government formal, it just wasn’t task focus. I laughed because that super-vague aolish-visual that started it with the coffin-shape opening up and dumping out something made sense then, although as a friend noted, “that was more than you wanted to know about it” LOL. I had to wonder if maybe that ref related to the combo of death and the bugle, like some biblical overlay (you know, like the sound of the horn and the dead will rise, or whatever). I didn’t do great but didn’t have long so it could have been worse.

Hero of the day: “Any girl can be glamorous,” Hedy Lamarr once said. “All she has to do is stand still and look stupid.”

Aside from being a lovely screen queen of the late 30’s and 40’s, she was co-inventor of the frequency-hopping torpedo guidance system, which didn’t get fully implemented by the navy (though with electronics by then) until a couple decades later, a tech which remains the cornerstone of anti-jamming tech even now (sez the net).

Well on the down side, she was married six times, but who’s counting. I adore smart women. All three of them. Wish when I was a kid, someone had bothered to introduce me to role models like that. My entire world of women when young was basically of the shallow, inane, manipulative, immature, somewhat crazy bizarro women my dad chose to marry. Repeatedly. Although this should have made me wonder about male intelligence (well, it did, but not until much later in life!), it mostly set me low opinions of women, which is why in most ways that don’t relate to sex, I get on much better with men, and am fairly masculine even in writing-personality.

Now that I’m getting old (41 today!!), I see much more good in women than I used to, and have more women friends. But when young, I really didn’t want to be one, since I failed to see anything particularly useful they did with their lives, outside the raising kids part which I never had any desire to do. Yes, I know, my kid is now 10, but she was not part of the plan. You know… she is ‘the life that happens while you’re making others plans’.

I adopted the moniker PJ in 1993 when I arrived on USENET and didn’t want my unique name noticed by any directors or investors in areas talking about aliens (let alone alt.sex.stories hahaha). When I announced I’d had a baby in August of 1996, all kinds of friends nearly fell outta their chairs, promptly ranting that they’d been my good buddy online for 2-3 years and they’d always thought I was a man. Then they backtracked to anything ever said that they might not have said to a woman and how sorry they were about it and hoped I wasn’t offended. It struck me as interesting that even in today’s culture where we think the sexes are more equal and honest, that even ordinary online/email conversation would be subject to a clear bias based on the gender of who you’re talking to.

As life would have it I married someone I met on the internet, took his last name as a middle name, and ‘became’ the PJ of my internet personality.

I may add Hedy to my list of potentially favorite people, though I’ll have to learn more about her first. Current on the list are Ataturk, George Washington Carver, Luther Burbank, Jane Roberts, Aleister Crowley, Nicola Tesla — well you can see the clear bias toward “explorers and inventors” here.

I hope I’m not too old to explore something now, though I suspect the more realistic question is whether I’m too tired.

My meditations have been nearly nonexistent. I’ve had a few clear moments but for the most part I’ve been in denial. And been avoiding sleep. Go figure.

Well, work is going well, life and home are going well, and I finally got off my butt and got back to work on my book about Remote Viewing, which is a big project but I think worth doing. I might be on the web, even the dojo, a bit less for the next few months for working more on that and viewing in my spare time.

My and Rykah have a date tonight. Amazon.com has something called “unBox” where you can download TV shows and movies and stuff. It only works for XP so far, and they have a player you must use (much like eBooks also do — for security of course), but as something like a pay per view option (which you also get to rewatch, if you buy it), for my laptop, it’s cool. They have the ENTIRE old early 1960’s Twilight Zone series! And the “Firefly” scifi series, and lots of old classic movies. Some modern movies are $10, some older ones $3-8, TV episodes $2. Anyway, so we’re going to sit on my bed with my laptop, eat microwave popcorn, and watch a show. It’s way late to start given tomorrow is school and work so I better go!

I was thinking to myself about how I’ve been going through this phase where my eyes and brain both keep ‘unfocusing and diffusing’, constantly. Driving me nuts. It occurred to me that my “I’s” keep unfocusing and diffusing… maybe that is really what it means.

I was signing a check for my kid’s karate dojo today and I realized that for a long time now I have the oddest habit: I keep forgetting the “I” in my last name (Gaenir). Literally, I handwrite it, and then I have to go back in and forcibly insert the I into the name, where it doesn’t have enough room really. I thought that LD would probably say that this summed up my life pretty well: “not making room for the I.”

I did a session that was two, short, ’sitting in walmart parking lot’ illegible piecess, which are often the only kind I get in. I love describing sessions in retrospect, soon enough that hopefully memory hasn’t torqued it to inventing, but late enough that feedback allows the tons of “contextual, below-verbal” levels of info to add into the description for much more sense.

1} There were these little glowy balls that were floating around all over the place in the air, and then suddenly there was this mass interruption and everything went to “static-and-black”. It looked as if I’d been watching, with my face just inside the screen so it was all I saw, a 3D TV documentary on these things, and then someone yanked the cable and a second later the plug. Very much a “sudden radical interruption”. It was pretty novel.

2} There was something physical that had two kinda flat shapes, horizontally placed, parallel with one above the other, and they were connected to each other only at one end, by this space that was between them and slightly inward from the end. (I sketched this. Twice. Badly.)

3} There was this shape, I couldn’t tell what it was, but there was a part of it that was very specifically “peeled away” on the corner, rather like in illustrations where they show you a part of something ‘peeled away’ to show you what is underneath. I didn’t feel the point was what was under, but rather the “peeling off of an outer layer.”

4} I saw something facing me that had a bunch of small shapes in a horizontal row, but there was this “swollen thickness” around them that later I wished I’d written down as a sort of “glow” but at the time, I just sketched, badly like everything else, my sketching really needs work darn it.

5} I had a combination of senses hard to articulate that I had to render as AOLs through no choice. A sense like a catapult, throwing one thing high and far; a sense like some kind of forced-air-machine, like whatever was being thrown wasn’t really solid.

6} I also had several feelings that suggested the physical thing connected near one end was kinda like a teeter totter, or the finger-side of a clamp at the connected end; a strong feeling like, “You push this side down, and the other side goes up.”

I was thrown off because right off at the beginning of the session I got this overwhelming sense of a whole bunch of tall parallel shapes. This nearly always means trees. I also had data with no FB and/or wrong, that seemed to me kinda like a rough edged truncated tree trunk, but I wasn’t sure if that was a ’symbol’ (of ‘rough surface’ and ‘truncated’) or if it was literal. And I had other data that is either no FB or just totally off, and I fell asleep once and nearly did a few times, despite the supershort scribbling 2-part session. I may be hopeless if I can’t make more decent time for the art, sheesh!

One interesting thing is in the my last several sessions I’ve had this experience near the end where it’s like, I get *so much data* that it’s impossible to fathom or articulate. It’s like I’m just aware of this giant glob of tons of stuff all at once, and sometimes I am sort of aware of some tiny aspect or six, but it’s all moving so fast, there is just no way. I had it on the prayer ribbons target recently, and on the mcqueen session recently, and again on this one.

Anyway the task was from LD who does most of my tasking that isn’t from group efforts or my envelope pool, and it was this novel technology, a Reich orgone cloud buster as it’s called, and his intent was describe how it worked. I’ve no idea if I fulfilled that but it was a fun session anyway. Of course, the disaster of my raw sessions vs. the decent form I can put them in if I have time prior to FB is always a little distressing but oh well. The messy truth is here.

Last night I sat looking at Dor’s talisman. It’s been hanging on the little shelf by my bed for a couple days. I felt if he wasn’t going to be more proactive with me, and I just don’t feel him (maybe this is my ignorance, but still!) that I see no reason to feed him my energy. It is a symbiote relationship but if I don’t get my part that’d make him a parasite and not to be over personal but at this moment in my life I think I have enough of those and I’m just not in the mood damn it. So I took off his talisman and hung it up and I have looked at it grumpily but refused to wear it, though I never took it off since I got it. Today I gave in and put it back on, feeling like maybe I was blaming him for my own BS.

Soooo…. as usual, my only time to do anything of interest today was about 15 minutes in the car, while Lu shopped. At this rate someday I’ll be on Geraldo talking about “How I found omniscience in the Walmart parking lot.” (Just kidding.)

It was TIME to do a meditation. I tuned into my sacred space and then wondered where I was. I often appear in different places and usually I figure that is a form of self communication too. I was way the heck away from the castle, I was over in the space where I began all this years ago, the plateau.

In fact, ironically I never noticed this until not long ago, but my “sacred space” that I made for myself a dozen years ago looks slightly like part of the background pic of this blog. It’s a super high “plateau,” one of those funky desert looking things, and when I look down the back, way down there is a meandering river. Down the front there is a cage elevator that gets me down to the ground, then there is a small cornfield, and I go through that and then a little clearing and a cave.

I go into the cave and in a ways, there is a tiny creek that goes under the ground just before the entrance. I walk beside the creek until I reach a tiny stone bridge that is one of those little shallow arch footbridges that leads across. Just on the other side, a few steps from the bridge, is a big stone archway that is a doorway out of the cave.

When I exit it, I’m in a different ‘inner’ reality. I turn right and walk alongside a tiny field, then left and go across it. In the center I reach a big tree, with some little white benches around it, where my inner guide waits. I trace it back exactly to return.

At one point I built a tiny ‘pavilion’ for the ‘four elementals of soul’ (3 and me, or “the 4″) that was way off to the right of where my armchair sits on the plateau. It was lovely, mostly open, with columns, and on its own little plateau surrounded by sky. Then one day I came in and it had grown massively into this whole castle that was over on the longer, main plateau, way off to the right. This was early this year when these meditations were so autonomous and profound… there’s just no putting it in words.

There was a huge walled garden extending about 1/8 of a mile off to the left. Inside the garden there is a really long thin pool-like shape (shallow like a fountain) that goes all the way through it, and inside this at the bottom is a colorfully tiled DNA helix. Don’t ask me why. The ‘4′ of DNA is about the only correlation I can make there.

Anyway, on the other side of the garden stairs up to the castle proper. In the middle of the castle on the top level is a roof and that is usually where I appear of late, on the other side of it. The sunsets are quite lovely there and far, far off in the distance, I can see what I am suspicious are dragons flying near the high mountains. There is a big river that goes by the other side of the castle.

In the middle of the castle is a winding square staircase that leads up to a big circular room with a giant symbol (dunno what yet) on the floor, and they call this room the ‘tower’. Even though it isn’t taller than the rest of the castle and isn’t a typical tower. Which is where the Senior (the top of ‘the 4′) has me come to work with ‘the consortium’… the next ring of identities involved in my larger soul. Or… something.

That was way more boring stuff than anybody wanted to know. Moving on.

I decided prior to going to the tower, where I am way overdue I know, I need to do an archmed on this weird “de-focussed” effect I’ve had lately. I have really had a hard time lately, haven’t meditated in quite some time, and the last time I tried literally everything was semi-opaque, distant and unreal. This seemed ok, not as good as usual but ok. It improved as I went on. So I got to IG, and realized it’d been awhile, and I hugged him –

–and then realized, or understood, that I have actually been avoiding meditation because of my response to him. I had no idea consciously. The last few times I’ve seen him I have noticed more and more that he is not human, and despite that on that inner world, entities can be anything, all my guides have been human until him. Each time I have seen him he seems to get a little bit more… um… amphibian. The last time I saw him I really noticed the small open gills on him, the spots on him, and his eyes seemed more black, and his skin more… rubbery sorta. A part of me pulls back in semi-repulsion from this, even though the more dominant, conscious me, insists on finding it novel and ignoring that.

“So I was avoiding you,” I say, “realizing” that HE has given me this realization when I hugged him. He nods. “I’m so sorry,” I say. “Please. I remember when I first met you I couldn’t even see you. I know it’s like a denial. Please don’t go less visible on me last time. I can’t stand it. I truly want you to be YOU, whatever you are. I want to know you, in your most natural form.”

“Are you sure?” he says. Suddenly a bit unnerved, I stammer, “Yeah, sure!”

He turns into this huge creature that is probably 20 feet high, looks sort of like a frog/toad but also like something else I can’t even name, and he sits there and looks down at me.

“Um.” I say, struggling to be polite and to keep my word. “So. Um. This is the real you! Wow. That’s. Um. That’s really… really interesting!”

He sat there and looked at me. I stood there and looked at him. Silence.

“SOooooo,” I say, knowing that he KNOWS whatever is inside me, so pretending anything is just SO beyond stupid, “Are you more comfortable in that form than you are in the humanoid form you usually wear with me?” I could only hope not.

“It doesn’t matter to me,” he says.

I nearly breathed a sigh of relief. Good. I would not be morally obligated to interact with that form then. “Well then… nothing personal but I would really prefer you in a humanoid form,” I said apologetically. It’s not you!” I assured him hastily, “It’s me, you know, I’m simple, easily scared, and I just relate more to species closer to mine.” Heh. Nice save. Almost.

Back in his humanoid form, looking rather like an overpale Trill from Star Trek (ok, with small gills as well as spots, lol) he waits for me.

I feel so guilty. I mean, he is part of me. I know he is part of me. I love him, he has done so much for me, he is so wise and brilliant and — and WTF kind of spiritual path makes your wise inner self a giant alien-amphibian frog-like creature? How come other people get little pink Jesuses and typical Buddha or Native sorts, and I get totally freaky things?!

I felt sort of… I dunno. Not really ashamed of myself, not a bad-guilt feeling, more like a sorry-I’m-not-more-evolved feeling. Like, “Yeah, be who you are!–er, as long as you’re like me.”

I tell IG I want to work with an archetype that somehow relates to this weird defocussing of late, and I add for good measure “and that will do me the most good from the med in the limited time I have for it.” I close my eyes, turn around, and open them to the arch. For an instant I nearly see something, and then –

– I see this panel, like a solid object about 2.5 feet wide, 4 feet tall, and about 2 inches thick, vertical flat-facing me, with a horizontal bar running right through the middle of it, and it is spinning slowly on the bar.

I just stand there looking at it like an idiot for a bit. It is always offputting to me when my archetype is an object instead of something I can talk to and I always end up talking to the archetype as if there is an invisible person standing next to it that is actually the ‘real’ archetype and whatever I see is just some projection.

I watch it spin. I’m asking myself, what does this mean? Should it be spinning, or not? What should I be doing here to interact? I ask it, “what do I do?” and it moves toward me and so I let it merge into me, and I become that funky flat shape slowly, irregularly spinning.

I feel myself defocus. Yes, this is it… feels rather like that. Slightly dizzy. Losing track of what is around. I force myself, now the object, to stop and be vertical, and I think at a space next to us where I imagine something easier for me to imagine having a consciousness is standing.

“So… it’s that I’m… um… spinning?” I ask. The shape of us changes, and the bar changes, and then there is a small ball in the middle, like a large ball-bearing, that somehow has its own elevated, stable nature, and now I am spinning in every direction, like one of those triple-ring things they use in the space program and they have at fairs. “Whoa…” I say, and I ’sense’ that I’m starting to feel some info now.

One thing is that I feel it’s relevent that in order for this spinning to happen I have had to completely lose track of my ‘center’ feeling. “So I need to… focus on my center,” I say, thinking this sure was a lot of trouble to go through only to be told something that even I, dim as I am some days, could have told myself.

I felt something change, and suddenly I was moving all over, and various walls and things around me I was in danger of running into, and some were moving toward me, literal chaos ensued until I forced myself not only to hold the center but to hold an ‘awareness’ of where everything else was and “keep it equidistant from me” so that I could remain in the center.

“Ah,” I say slowly, starting to get it. “So it isn’t just about centering myself. It’s also about maintaining an awareness of what is around me, because that is a big part of truly centering myself. When I tune out of what is around me–just like defocusing my eyes–I also lose the needed awareness for maintaining my own center–the I.” That seemed sorta right. I don’t think I totally got this accurately but it was the best I could do.

And then I’m sorry to say that I forget the rest. I do think I ended it but I can’t remember. Lu scared me when he opened the door, I yelped loudly, and the last of it fell out of my head.

Later tonight I went down to see IG and I hugged him, and I asked him to take his real form and I flew up to gently lay on top of his giant head to rest on him. He was kinda slimy. Apparently psychic amphibians are slightly icky too. He warned me but as I landed I said, so what… I’ll take a psychic shower. And I laid on him and told him I loved him and I was sorry for being so reactive earlier.

I hope this weekend to get some more ’serious’ meditation done esp. in the Tower.

There is a book called “The 8″ by Katherine Neville which is a great novel. I bought it a zillion years ago when it came out and liked it so well I bought copies for several friends. One of the concepts that was sort of ‘grafted on’ to the larger (complex, but good) plot was that of people literally playing the role, unknowingly, of pieces in a chess game. Social and political and historical changes happening, and someone who… has a very long term outlook on things shall we say, manipulating little things here and there to bring about a combination of people and circumstance for a certain end.

The last week, perhaps in response to getting enough sleep for a whole 3 nights running a week ago, I’ve been working insanely. Trying to catch up during the day with a job that was really slow and then just as I got handed more work because it was slow, my normal work exploded. Then when I get off at night, I launch into trying to get some of the early Taskerbot (junior) features up inside TKR at the Dojo Psi.

I swear, web coding, testing, etc. is so insanely time consuming it’s ridiculous. Only other webworkers really know what I’m talking about. Even when it’s programming or design it’s still essentially the tech-secretarial job that, like Grapenuts cereal, seems to breed and multiply while in your bowl, until eventually you’re gasping, My God, I’m still not done! Will this ever end??.

I took a little break to do a quick session last night just in time for the task closing at Radical RV. Eh. Didn’t go great, but I feel I kinda understood the feelings when I saw FB so I don’t mind. Certainly better than the last one which was an interesting session though alas on a completely different target apparently lol.

On the recent task, I got a common personal symbol (a sense of something going straight up into the sky and it just keeps going, something intangible) for death yet “muted” somehow; more flowing and not as sharp (as dead bodies and death events normally come through). Wasn’t sure what to make of it due to the difference. Sometimes frequency-based technology targets have some similar feelings as targets I’ve done on death and spirits and such (weird, eh? maybe that is reflecting us all being energy-information at base?).

I came ‘down from’ where the sense had gone up and got “A creative embroidery” and a sense like threads of energy weaving, or something like that, I nearly said strings and now wish I had. ;-) Then I had a similar but different sense I assumed was the same thing (it wasn’t) which on FB looks/feels exactly like the bottom of the interesting tree in the FB. So on the bright side I can see in retrospect that when I intended to go downward I did quite literally go down to the ribbons tied to the tree and then just below them, can’t get more down that that.

I had a repeated gut feeling that was pretty clear that I was intrigued to see FB on to figure out. It was very much a feeling of energy and yet I figured of something real. It was like at first everything was energetic, normal, and then there was this sort of surge where the ideogram started, and then a sense of it compressing, getting tighter, stretching out, and then finally into a totally flat line of frequency, I even used the term ‘flatline’ because I still had that sense of death somehow being involved. (I had this vague assoc with my husband laughing about a political situation, Castro is said to be ‘very stable’, kinda like how the French doctors reported that Arafat’s “condition had stabilized”—once he was dead. LOL.)

Then I got some data, there’s no FB but it’s not the ‘focus of the target’ so it doesn’t matter. Then I saw this Maltese Cross, and there were “radiance rays” coming from it like a thing of spirit. Except oddly, I got exactly that shape— sans the radiance— for the HAARP target, so now I associate it with tech! That was a bit confusing, but I went with the spiritual angle given the sense of glory. I had a sense/sketch of something that on FB I see WAS basically the ribbon material but I didn’t record it well enough for that to be clear I think.

Then I got a sense of land, not just like ‘dirt and grass’ but literally “land” like where the heart is, and I felt that the actual land had something significant to do with the target or its nature. That was hard to articulate and I believe this was good data, but not real obvious; next time I’ll know to try for more on that kind of data. And lastly, though this was also early on, I kept getting overlays of something like a heart rate monitor, I started to write down “or seismometer” but felt some AOL would screw up my data (…actually I think it was ok overlay given the origin of the target — the event which THIS target event memorializes is ‘intrinsic’ to the target), and again that sense of normal energy> pulse/event> tiny really tight compressed frequency> flatline.

The target turned out to be a bit disappointing given my session LOL, it was all these ribbons tied around a tree as a memorial to the tsunami victims. So… aside from the visual of the tree bottom which I wrongly recorded as ‘flowing over’ (it looks like that!) and the ribbon which I badly recorded as compared to a sine wave and maybe, if we stretch just a little, the radiant maltese cross as some symbol of spiritual… my data has no application to the target focus. Some may seem to relate to what is intrinsic to the target focus (the tsanami and the deaths); I don’t mind having data that relates to such things, I just don’t really get credit for it. Ah well. The sorta pitiful session — but great learning experience — is here.

The current Radical RV task is from RV Sam and closes/FB 10pm Central this Sunday. Another opens tonight that I task. We are keeping this group small but still have a little room for those interested. If you apply, don’t do it anonymously with email hidden ok. I want to know who is asking to join my small private group, though I welcome folks to uses aliases in the group if they wish. Yahoo doesn’t have any way for me to communicate with an applicant to ask, if they don’t have email available, so I have to just not approve it which I’m sure offends!

So I bet you’re wondering why I mentioned The 8.

I was thinking last night, in the 14 seconds between climbing into bed and falling unconscious, about Remote Viewing. About group souls, as Seth puts it. About a higher self that may have more than just our identity and how our lives may be affected by the will/intent/motion of things from another level up. And of the idea of people being in a really big chess game that we haven’t the longevity to observe.

Back in May of ‘95 I had a very weird repeated OBE experience with “a soldier in a graveyard” whom I felt “had died doing something very unusual, very ‘mental’ in some way.” (Article here.) That spawned something different, and in October ‘95 I was finally able to pull to full conscious recollection a six month chronic series of what I call ‘programmed dreams’, and knew that because I’d finally done that I was free of them. (Article here.) Ironically, this involved mention of—I am not making this up—the CIA. The next day I heard about RV and was totally obsessed from then on. I’m sure the CIA connection is coincidence right? And RV’s connection to a ’solder who died doing something unusual and mental’ is coincidence too, right?

I just happened to meet several former stargate people (viewers, scientists, consultants) over the years. I just happened to become friends with some of them. (I often feel that meeting Joe (McM) has been one of the things that has made all the years of BS in the RV field worth it, simply because he and his wife are such exceptional human beings.) Yada yada, stuff just happens. In 1997 I nearly left the field but had literally a shamanic vision one night that kept me in the loop until mid-1998 when I left for four years.

So…. Out of all the people in the world and even this country who would love to have met all the people I have, in person and through other means, how come it was me who got to do it?

Of all the options and opportunities that there were only a few of and yet a zillion in line, how come they came to me?

I used to feel, in the old days around ‘97, like archiving everything was literally a spiritual duty, because I had this access to people and info that so many wanted to have and didn’t.

Is it possible that my higher self fully intended for me to become involved with RV, and if things have gone well for me in it and I just happened to chance into a lot of people and info and so on, is it because, in part, it’s a matter of ‘True Will’?

Might it all be a big, cosmic-sized game of chess in the end. Where I am both a pawn and a Queen depending on what level you are looking at it from.

Where my reasons for a movement of interest, location etc. are not just what I think they are but actually exist on many different levels, for different reasons, just like how a dream can be symbolic of the body but also of psychology and also of spirit and also slightly precognitive about world events—all in one.

Maybe our lives are like that. Maybe my driving obsession with building online RV tools and community and archives and an infrastructure to help perpetuate it into the future and not lose the knowledge we have, relates to more than my intensity as a personality in general. Maybe my future is somehow tied into it. Maybe my higher self is placing me like a Bishop here, and then at some point I will be ready for his planned move that moves me elsewhere. Maybe we think of life as happenstance and daily events but really it’s just a lack of perspective and being too close to it. From a distance, maybe it would be evident that it is all just…

Chess.

I used to spend a lot of time “in the center,” as I called it.

Basically it’s just a concept-visualization of a superstring that goes through me, from the core of the earth to the center of the galaxy, and which IS “me.” The more I pull myself to exact center of it, the better I feel.

Last night I practiced a little meditation doing that again, what must surely be the most simple of meditations.

I decided to try a remote viewing session while “holding that” state. I was fairly optimistic that, if for no other reason than because it was novel, it would probably get a good session.

Eh. It was ok. Clear target contact, but difficult to translate. I think the target itself was not ideal for me at this time is all, as I’m still working back the curve.

I’m too lazy to go get my book to scan. I had this sorta sketch, I felt there was a person in the middle, and these arms that weren’t arms stretched out and seemed tied to something or holding on to something. I had the sense of sleeves without arms or something being used to hold a person or to hold on. I don’t know what my brain was doing but I wrote ‘paramedic’. LOL. Oh yeah, I had a sense of some kind of emergency like some person needing rescued. I also got that there was something “missing” from some important structure or object. It turns out the target was Princess Di with several kids in Angola at an orthopedic hospital and most all of them were missing a limb of some kind, haha. It was poor data only because I didn’t know how to translate it properly. I didn’t get much on her though, aside from a wrist cuff or bracelet that made me think of a woman (she was wearing a visible watch).

I found that the attempt to stay “in the center” actually is clearly different than whatever feeling I normally have when I am opening to target data.

See way back when, and this is one of those things nobody else could possibly believe because it sounds so ridiculous and fake, but of course when you are in the state of mind to do this sort of thing it all seems perfectly normal, heh! — when I was doing this ‘center’ thing a whole lot, particularly in late ‘94, I had this period of time where I could, as I put it, “feel the thread of truth.”

For example, I could read the paper, books, or something written by a coworker (so I could ask them about stuff), and I could feel what was true and wasn’t, and to what degree. I could feel when the truth variance came from the author’s intent vs. something else. I could feel it when a word was inserted by someone else like an editor. It felt “cold” in a way hard to describe. I could feel it when the author was writing along fluently and then stopped and rearranged a sentence(s); it felt just like if you took an energy stream, stopped, grabbed a segment, and mixed it up. Now that I know about RV, I think to myself, what an awesomely useful skill! But at the time of course, it was just one of a million things in my life that seemed normal after awhile. I haven’t had that since I semi-suddenly ‘devolved’ between 96-98.

So I thought that since that state seemed so “attuned to truth,” that maybe it would be great for RV. But it took me forever to do a small data poor session and I was bothered all through it by the dichotomy of wanting to sort of “open/float” when the centering sort of made me “consolidate/ground”.

Well, it was an idea. Learning something doesn’t work for you is still learning.

As is so often the case, I am “starting over again” in Remote Viewing as of not too long ago, and it’s weird but every time, over the years, I have to go through the same development curve! I mean you’d think there would be some of that “riding a bicycle” about it, but for the most part there isn’t. One of the most measurable factors is how humans come in. Initially I bluescreen them entirely. Then I totally objectify them (describe them as if they are a tree or building). Then I objectify them somewhat, but recognize in the data that it reminds me of person related data and maybe a certain gender. That is about where I am right now. I don’t know what to say about the sessions the other night—I don’t normally at this stage of my RV curve get people that well. Then eventually I’d start getting more people, and then a nice dose of psychology/thoughts — and it’s usually around then I quit viewing for a long time and have to start all over again.

One would think… wouldn’t one… that maybe that torques my belief system in some way, and sends me into denial.

I may be the most experienced beginner in history. I have more knowledge about it than I need, and more experience from the re-re-re-re-starting over the many years, but still, it is so bizarre how the belief systems, they literally are always trying to close, you have to view EVERY DAY just to keep them fully open, more than once a day to get much progress. They slam shut, perhaps more slowly if you have a longer period behind you of solid viewing, but if you let it go long enough and they do, you’re bailing the boat all over again! It’s exasperating.

Well, I can’t believe I worked like 7-something am to 12:15am today. And I STILL didn’t finish an important report I needed to give my boss, mostly because I was working on yet another important report LOL. I hope I’m not too fried to view.

My tasker LD is not yet complaining about my laziness but I need to get viewing more for others and less on paper targets.

I just realized an hour ago that I didn’t have to do the starlight session this week because… heh… I’m the tasker! (No brain, no pain.) Any of you who want to secretly do it, I’ll post a link to feedback here too on Sunday morning so you’ll get some.

First task closes Sunday in the Radical RV group, next one is already open and closes Wednesday. They are ALL mysteries so for fun I really want to do them.

So… that’s 2 a week for Rad, 1 a week for SL, 1 a week for TKR, I need at least a few a week on paper targets with myself and a few a week with my tasker. I suppose I should be doing more than that if I want to get anywhere with it. Sigh.

If I could buy anything to improve my life, it would be more time. Not on the backend like long life, but in the here and now like longer days. I just don’t understand how a person can hold a FT+ job, raise a kid as mostly a single parent, have a whole second job worth of time invested in programming and communications for online projects, and then still have time to view consistently on top of that.

I guess it’s just a matter of what you make your priorities. If viewing was really my priority I would tell the dojopsi and my kid to stuff it and just work and view. But those two ‘projects’ seem pretty important to me LOL, and I guess until she is older and more independent, and until I finish the variety of in-progress software for the Dojo Psi/TKR that’ll make it much more stand-alone and fun, I feel obligated. So, maybe in another six months I’ll have more time off TKR. Depends on how fast I code, so I don’t know. It’ll be several years before I have more time off the kid! But once TKR stuff is done I intend to go mostly offline but for friends, and spend my time viewing instead of coding/talking to support the project.

I assume it can stand on its own at that point. And idiots will not overtake it. But every time I assume…!!

Oh yeah and a P.S. for comments sent me privately (why most people send them private email instead of posting them here I don’t know, but that’s ok I guess!)

1 – Yes, jellybeans, I am really not kidding. Alternatively, I have an unreasonable love for containers, but I’m trying to keep my house minimalized so… very tiny containers… wallets, ring boxes, whatever… it’s a weirdness.

2 – Yes dragon-angel you can join radical but if you’re too nice to me even once publicly I’m going to “accidentally” ban your username and claim innocence about why your computer can’t get there. I can’t stand it when people are too nice to me. Where’s my bucket. I’m going to really suck as a guru someday. Hey, maybe now.

3 – Thank you M., but I don’t think I need an exorcist, Steve either left on his own or is a part of me now. WHERE’S MY BOURBON AND CHICKS? Hey, who was that?!

OK, off to view now.

So last night, in part to redeem myself from a lousy session at starlight, I did three 15 minute practice sessions with envelope feedback. I forgot how much I enjoy doing that, and I want to do it daily if I can. Truly, 15 minutes IS enough unless you’re really in deep at the stopping point. When I do the time limit, it forces “what is important” to come through because I am not giving my mind the opportunity to make it take me an hour of pleading, basically. It has 15 minutes to show me what it can do and then time is up. The sessions went ok.

Tonight I fell asleep when I sat down on my bed to do the exercises. Hazard of having no non-bed place to do viewing I suppose! After I woke up I decided to do three more sessions, two exercises and one for my daily tasker that is overdue.

The first session went ok. Not great for translation but decent for contact. It was lava taking over a street.

The second session was very odd. Much more of this and I’m going to get a real reputation (ha). From the first moment I had “intense” feelings, and I got that it was a woman, with something in her hands, having those emotions, and feeling doomed, and like everything she knew, her whole foundation had crumbled under her and so on. I actually AOL’d (without comment in session) the target itself!, as it’s one that is also in the TKR Practice Studios/Galleries.

There was this odd component in the session though. This is a little embarrassing to admit, but it happened so there it is.

I could see this sort of light-thing, a sort of ovoid shape, sort of floating, hovering, a bit in the air, but I wasn’t sure if it was real or not. I mean I knew I perceived it, I just didn’t know if it was ‘real’ in the same way that everything else was. Later, when the light-thing came back and I perceived it more clearly, I described it as:

Like a star, but a shade(ghost) combined. A soul???

I was about to ask for more factual data, and remembered that my time was running out and I had not yet let the target give me whatever data IT wanted most to share. That is part of the Archetype-RV experimental method I’ve been working on; it’s a mutual thing, the target has equal rights, and in exchange for helping me perceive that info, I also let the target choose some of the info I get. And what I got was –

biological lifeform that was here
lacks metaphysical closure.
(e.g., trapped soul)

I then had this ‘burst’ of plenty of impressions, all far too nebulous and fleeting to record, I was out of time and I ended the session.

So after each session, after I muse on feedback a bit, then I go back to talk to the archetype of the target, and I tell it how great it did and thank it and all that. But this time, I felt this odd sense in my heart chakra, and then it sort of bloomed into this incredibly gushing wave of “compassion” for this woman.

I called on Archangel Michael, and asked him to please give the woman peace and merge her with that light, her soul, and during this I had the sense that I had to really “hold the line of intent and will” about this, just hold on. So I was doing this, and really holding hard to the ‘attention and intent’, and then I had the most INTENSE body-feelings.

My heart chakra bloomed like it was the size of my body. I got fuzzy-buzzy intensely all through me from head to toe. My head actually went back and my mouth open, in sheer awe. This lasted less than 20 seconds. Then it “resolved” was the feeling and I felt a little odd for a few moments, and then it passed and I felt really calm. Like it was ok now and she is at rest.

Like wow, man. (Session here.)

I felt a little bit stunned, to be honest, but I needed to move on to my next session. I actually felt that I probably shouldn’t be doing another one, just because the one prior, I’d really tuned into “her feelings” and didn’t feel fully free of that yet, and also because of the experience that came after, I felt like I probably needed some time to integrate what just happened. But hey, I was overdue, so I went ahead into the next session, even though I had the lurking suspicion that one way or another, there was going to be some side-effect from doing this while still a little in the throes of the previous experience.

Could have seen that train coming a mile away, right?

So I get that the next target is a man… and this sense of a dynamic (meaning usually motion) of a circle or circles… both of which it turns out are correct. But apparently now my brain was utterly tuned to the weird (”You’re listening to 101.7, K-astral, rocking the universe!”) so even though I had enough data to figure it was a man and there was some motion involved, I shortly (remember these are pretty short sessions!) had the sense that he was dead now. Which was correct.

Now if I were coaching myself and had half a brain I would go into that session and say, “Yes perhaps, but ‘now’ is not the target’s timeframe, the time-point is at the time of the photo or tasker intent.” But nooooooo, since I was in session, this “shift” into being more interested in the target AFTER he was dead than during the target point was smoooth and I didn’t even notice it. Possibly like the 2nd session on the Chernobyl target, I unintentionally retasked myself… that’ll teach me.

I kept getting this overlay. Like it was one person and yet two. Shifting back and forth. The man says to me, “I used to BE somebody!” and I sense he is just a man as I know them, but then I also have really weird overlays of egyptian and lots of “death” symbolism and some man with his eyes painted who is somehow also him.

After the session, I mused that perhaps IF — while we’re flying around totally without any rational feedback here, why not?! — IF a person’s soul (or whatever you want to call it) has more than one identity strongly (like the way Seth perceived “Rupert” more strongly than “Jane” when communicating with her), then if you are focused on the “them that they are after death,” perhaps you’re getting the larger dose of their soul, and perhaps more than one identity could be involved.

When I got more than one data-symbol related to eye/eyes I figured I was dealing with identity (that is just a strong “I” symbol even in metaphysics).

So, I focused in, intensely feeling that I really wanted to “experience whatever the target wanted to share.” This was followed by a really ineffable feeling, I can’t put it in words, but I spontaneously sort of bellowed in mind,”I mean, what will FIT through me!” (and then laughed at myself). Like I had a ‘burst’ of stuff that was just way too much for me.

And then I felt like I just… hang on, I’m serious… like I just absorbed into my body… a man. THE man. I felt like we were merged like an energy envelope, and like he was looking through my eyes, except it wasn’t him, it was more like…

A me + him² = NewMe.

I sat there for awhile, feeling as if, well, maybe I was different now. I felt different. And then I thought well maybe I need an exorcist. And then I thought well maybe it was destined to be this way: I mean, that my destiny in the future actually counted on the ‘addition of him to my conglomerate’ at this point.

And then I thought to focus on “how he felt that was different from me:” Older. Calculating. More socio-political smart. A sense of strength. A strong sense of self. I aol’d this latter point as possibly royal or somehow different from me in a way hard to understand — it felt clear that he had had a lot more “power” than I have, over people, over larger situations, etc. Through all this I was getting the overlay of ‘the man’ who was ‘also’ the ‘egyptian guy’ too.

I didn’t want to share my session with my tasker. It was so weird that I felt like, “Well maybe I am hallucinating!” And I thought, “You know, maybe the target is a a boat or something, how the heck would I know, I probably made it up.”

On another level I thought, “You’re in denial.” But I do denial so well–why stop now. In the end, I decided I really don’t choose to share that session with anybody, not that this writeup doesn’t have far more info than it does of course.

The target was Steve McQueen. A man. Who was famous. But is dead now.

Whether his soul also had an Egyptian identity will have to be one of those “non feedback” points.

Well, it’s all very cosmic and stuff, but…

…NewMe still has to work for a living, so I gotta go to bed now.

Edit to add a P.S.: I know this is a personal blog, designated for ‘metaphysics and weirdness’ and such. But still, I just can’t get over feeling like any minute now, someone in the RV field is going to be going, “PJ absorbed Steve McQueen! Hahahaha!” and I’m going to feel like the biggest idiot alive. Sigh………!

No, but really….

So my “archetypal ‘relationship’ approach” to viewing had three good sessions. I did two more sessions on a target for daz’s group.

The target turned out to be Chernobyl.

My FIRST session was on a high technology of metal with several rods or protrusions, situated in some kind of material I suspected was coolant as I couldn’t lock on gas or fluid, which generated massive energy, was in an enclosed space, and was not good for human bodies. (Not an event, though, which was the task focus.)

My SECOND session was on these giant sandworms whose bodies are used for a manufacturing material by a people living inside the tubes of them underground. In fact, in retrospect, it looks like some massive AOL drive on the Mars tubes except I didn’t think of the Mars tubes while doing it until the very end (when I had this visual of something on a track up high and made a connection to Ernest L. Norman’s “The Truth About Mars” book which had something like that, and then all the other data seemed potentially similar if impossible, and at that point I decided I was offtarget and quit, so I’m not sure how that could have affected the session).

Go figure. And I felt guilty as I was s/b doing LD’s task instead. Karma maybe, heh.

I was very tempted to only give them my first session, and I wish I had. The joy and tears is here.

So . . . was the second session a punishment. Was it on a completely different target, or the same place a million years later. Typical of aol-drive it was amazing how consistent it was LOL. Weirdly it ALSO had the tech but like a minor sidenote, like it wasn’t the focus.

The experiences were incredible! I mean totally interactive! It was just like a good archetype med, sometimes even better. The arch would show up and do something, I would interact, and then I’d be having an entire “experience” like either seeing a movie or literally being in a 3-D world but like in astral form. I had a helluva lot of fun despite being, as I often joke, “Off on Mars,” which actually in this case may be a hilarious pun. (No. I do not think Mars has giant sandworms. I just think I tuned into some bizarre science-fiction scenario.)

The only minor quirk I can see with my focus is that on the second session, rather than focusing on “the target tasked for the group right now” as I had the first time, I “called the part of me” that I had given to the archetype-target.

The first thing it told me was that how I had presented it, and kind of made it in my mind, that I wrote down previously, was wrong (”It wasn’t a celtic knot”) which was a rather odd way to say hello now that I think about it. Maybe that should have been a sign? I don’t know.

The only refocussing I did was through the gold threads, rather than specifically on “the target I’m going to get feedback on for this session”. Perhaps that’s where I went wrong. Did I accidentally retask myself, if my definition of the threads was ‘wrong’ and that’s what I was viewing-from?

Well, live and learn! Every day’s a new day.

If nothing else it was a good exercise. I am getting better at allowing myself to be led, at allowing experiences and visuals to unfold.

The ironic thing is that the reason I chose daz’s target is because I’d had several good sessions with the method and figured that based on probability alone, I was probably going to eat it really bad on something, so I wanted a human tasker to maybe help me a bit with something more interesting. Only after, did I realize I’d have to join the group for FB. Then he offered me private FB without that but alas, not till after I’d joined, and that would have been kind of rude to leave then! Anyway, so a part of me wonders if my “expectation that I was going to have a session way off,” as like an ego-response to having done well previously, literally created that reality. Be careful what ya believe in, I guess.

Still. OK it may be totally off target but as far as session experience goes, I think this is one of my favorites. ;-)

Edited to add later: after I gave my sessions to the group, the tasker promptly gave me ‘additional feedback’ he said he’d found really interesting recently. It was a news article about how the meltdown at chernobyl had created mutation in worms. Now I believe that the tasker’s interest in this, which was probably during or before I did the second session, is associated with the results.  Tasker overlay isn’t new but I really “wanted” to get the tasker overlay, that was the point of asking for a human-tasked target… I just got more than I bargained for apparently.

One of the things about experimenting is, sometimes you don’t really know if you are walking a path with potential… or one destined to failure for something so stupid you’ll be whacking your forehead about how could you have missed it… or just some ordinary, meaningless path that your desire to be experimental is making into a big drama-queen head-trip Adventure with a capital A, when really it just ain’t no thang, as the saying goes.

I did another session along the same lines as the last one. A few have worked so great for me in this “relationship” model I’ve been working in, that I’ve been excited about it all.

I realized when beginning the connect phase that if it’s easier for me to ‘expect’ the target to provide me a symbol of something, like a person, to ‘communicate’ with about the initial phase, that’s fine too. So I did.

When it came to putting some of my energy into some form that I could put ‘on or in’ the archetype—or in this case, give to the target-symbol—I “understood” that it wanted something specific. Instead of just imagining pouring energy into a little ball and handing it over, which was my conscious intent for a moment, I felt obliged to go over my entire body pulling out “threads” of this gold-light-energy. I mean my whole body, head to toes, back and front, as if it was important that there be some representative energy from all over.

I felt intrigued by this; it’s always the spontaneous, surprising stuff that has the most power in archetype work and I didn’t consciously think of this. I then held in both my hands a heaping group of energy strings, looking much like regular strings would in some respects, about 8-9″ long each and several dozen of them. I wasn’t sure what to do with them, but it “felt right” to let them settle into a neat bundle–they looked silky like hair then— and then to twist this into a shape that sort of tied in what looked like a Celtic knot. Then I gave it to the representative, and he indicated that was ok and it was clear that he had a specific . . . “criteria” for this and I had met it acceptably.

This made me feel a bit odd, not bad at all, just wondering… my archetypes as I’ve worked with them for years, may change or heal or whatever on their own schedule, in their own way, and have their own communication, but it has always been me who 100% drove that show. Suddenly it feels as if I’m having to put my experience where my armchair is: all that talk about “mutual” and “equal relationship” and “respect” and I find I’m being forced to acknowledge exactly that, when despite my theories, apparently I still had a comfortable “superior and in control” perspective (if my surprise on not feeling much of either is any clue!).

I wondered, so is the archetype (which is the target, even though in my normal work the archetype is always ME, yet we’re working on the assumption that the universe, target and me are all part of the same continuum here… ouch! my brain hurts!)—is the archetype-target, prior to the session, telling me something about its nature, or the nature of my connection with it?

OK so then in the session, I feel as if it’s going fine. (No FB yet.) Then, this is funny: the element of “string theory” — specifically, Serpienski strings (a type of fractal I believe) — ended up in the session, and I gotta ask myself, ok, WHAT are the odds that something bizarre like that in a session would be following on something in the intro of me pulling out little strings all over me? I don’t know if it means anything more than me picking up on me, or if the session data was in fact wrongly affected by the intro—but still I found it intriguing.

At the end of the session—or rather, some ways in—I had such a massive AOL on the target I’d done just previous that I had to quit viewing altogether. In retrospect I see that it really was AOL, so I’ll be doing another session, ignoring that and picking up the earlier stuff where I left off… and we’ll see if I can successfully, surgically resuscitate the data. ;-)

So then, going into the session after that, I had the feeling that I need to establish a typical, consistent doorway for this contact. By that I mean, archetype work has the inner-space “cave” in the Inner Guide shamanic format, and it has rituals in various occult formats, most things do have some kind of standard visualized environment and process for the “connection.”

I felt that my inner space cave was not the place to do this. Don’t know why, but I feel that it is not appropriate there for some reason. Nor my typical area where my Four and regular guides are. Nor my physical environ either. I felt there was something I’m missing, something that a subconscious part of me was saying, “Do it like this, this is the good, solid, appropriate approach.” I can actually “feel” under the surface of me, a “mental model, thought-form construct” that is what is… good for this. I just haven’t had it come through yet.

In the next session I spent like 15 minutes trying to get an intuitive handle on how to start this off properly and ended up snoring. Sigh. Chronic sleep deprivation sucks. Every time I’ve tried to view for 2 days I fall asleep. Yes I know I need sleep but I don’t have time. Grrrr.

My earlier session, which in retrospect, although a diff experience, made me think: when I went through the data, I saw all these amazing parallels to the previous session I’d done 2 days before. This made me wonder: could it be that I did not “disconnect” sufficiently? You know, like viewers talk about detox from target, well is there some disconnect ritual kind of necessary when you are trying to make such a deep connection as I am with them, an actual permanent exchange of energy with the target as an archetype?

And is my reality going to freak out if I start doing all these sessions that amount to archetype meditations? I’ve only worked on MY archetypes and the results are staggering; this is real magic in the most profound form. Now I’m working on… um… are they still “my” archetypes? Does viewing something connect me with it (”putting it into my reality” you might say) in such a way that this “internal blueprint of communication and energy exchange” makes it no different than me meditating on a life situation or my Sun?

I do rather feel like I’m walking a path that hasn’t got any kind of road at all. The closest I find is a combination of Seth (Jane Roberts), Crowley, Edwin Steinbrecher, and my own years of offbeat experience with ‘active meditations’, identities, etc. I’m not sure if I am blazing a useful trail, or if I’m just meandering through the psychic gutter making a big deal of every can I have to kick out of the way. It feels right, though. It feels like this is something that is really important to me, and that I am supposed to find, but that I am just at the beginning.

It was time to go do the weekly TKR Mission. I used the experimental approach I’ve been trying lately where I see the session as a relationship between me and the target.

I ended up calling my Inner Guide who recommended the same process as used for working with archetypes—that I use my energy to create some object that I place on or in the target. But I was sleepy and I kept kind of tuning out into zombieland initially. Finally, I got into the session, having spaced through actually giving over my “energy construct”, but apparently… some part of me, or the target, wasn’t going to let that slide. I had this archetypally- autonomous- experience where this giant structure, bigger than a vehicle but smaller than a house, came crashing down onto a street where I was standing, sliding right up next to me nearly like a plane crash, and it’s this big bizarre shape, and then I realize–kind of taken aback by the suddenness of all this–that it’s a giant cash register, drawer open! Like, Give it to me! Put it in here! hahaha!

Then I was sort of disconcerted. Wow. Just because I SAID interactive didn’t really mean I was ready for the target to be, er, that interactive. “Show me the money! You promised!” was the gist of it, except energy was the payment.

I had this brief wonder if every RV session is going to be an archetype meditation for me. This would have fairly enormous reality-impact.

Then I wondered if there was going to be pieces of me all over the universe thanks to me doing this archetypal trade with every target?? But that would be silly really, since I trade energy, atoms and attention and even healing with zillions of sources already, so how would it matter.

I had fun in the session. I really ‘felt’ it, I just LOVE the “experiential” kind of sessions. It’s in the galleries. I noticed in my presentation session, seemingly by accident—it just didn’t seem ’so relevent’ to me when doing the gathering for that presentation—I left out some data that I suppose some would consider negative. Then I had this guilt trip about whether I am morally obliged to share at least if I’m doing public session work with others in the public. I still am not sure how I feel about it. Finally I posted it along with the orig here.

Anyway. Not perfect but not bad, though a bit on the wordy and symbolic side, but still enough fun to inspire me to do it more regularly. I think I will stay with this particular approach for at least a few weeks. My last experiment ended up with me unable to hit the broad side of a barn for nearly a month, it was just horrible. But then, that’s what experimenting is about I guess.

I thought the moment in the session where I saw what I thought was a female angelic was interesting, given the name is HAARP. Heh. I’m easily amused I guess.

I keep forgetting to blog. I need to stay on it. Later, rereading stuff, it does me good.

Had a brief moment after a session recently. Flew to my Inner Guide. I see him more clearly all the time. I try not to be vaguely weirded out by this. He is sort of like if you crossed a human, and maybe an eel or something. Mostly human but… different. His eyes and ears and the side of his face and his skin. I believe the I.G. is a reflection of a part of me, so it doesn’t matter, but I find it interesting as none of my I.G.’s have ever been anything but totally human before. Strangely, I vaguely associate the “fishian” overlay with natal and core psychology stuff.

I took him with me to the Tower, as the Senior had asked me to visit more often. I feel very odd when I am there with all the others. I feel extremely shy, and always look for my mate of the four and hold him with my head against his chest like a shy kid. I’ve never been shy in my life, so it’s a weird feeling, especially to have in a meditation. Maybe following on my weird comment to Cosmos my cat the other night, I looked at the Senior and heard myself blurt out, “I don’t want to die yet.” (!! This spontaneous thing is kinda worrisome you know?!) He said seriously, “It is always your choice.”

Anyway, eventually (I’ve forgotten some details) I decided that what I want to do is Remote Viewing. And I suddenly felt the time was right and I stood up alone and straight and said, “I request, in honor, that all of you give me this: I want to use Remote Viewing as my way of acting out God’s Divine Will. I want this, and I have PAID MY DUES. I deserve it: it is mine!” Oddly it seemed as if they all half-expected this and felt it was about time.

I had the sense that my recent misery at hours and hours of my limited off-time spent doing manual archives of RV discussion lists from years ago… had simply finally put my Virgo self-imposed suffering to some level where finally I felt like I “deserved” skill and success with it. We of Four merged, though not the others. Still not a real intense merge which tells me I’m not fully integrated with it yet.

I had time for a quickie session just a bit ago. Have been determined to do at least a little viewing in the practice galleries to support them, but this is the first time I’ve gotten around to it in eons. Of course, wouldn’t you know, I got all the data any viewer should need, but many aspects of it were just like a movie (Superman Returns) that I saw just a few hours ago, so I dismissed them. Also had a couple ‘mini-movie’ daydreams (where spontaneously I’m just ‘in an experience, where like a dream I feel I know everything sometimes, and then I snap back here. But usually, when I get back to attention here, it was all so fast I can’t remember much of it).

It was not good but it wasn’t horrifying (esp for a quickie) so I let the session be public. That oughtta cure any inclination anybody in there might ever have to make me a guru.

Last night I got to BE a tornado for a little while.

Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Did I mention wow?

Just prior to that, I had a whole realization related to remote viewing and the consciousness inherent in the targets themselves. (See the Firedocs RV blog, today’s date, for details.)

This enormous amount of powerful and chaotic energy… this enormous effort to “maintain cohesion” of all the energy which was “myself”… this effort being centered around keeping a “stillness at the absolute center”…

Why is it people think talking to a tree is metaphysically acceptable, but nobody considers that a tornado—shorter-lived but surely more intense during that time—might be a “consciousness” just like anything else?

Awhile ago—a year? two? I have no track of time thanks to over a decade nearly living on the internet—I was half-asleep in bed one morning when the most amazing sound occurred from outside. In a dream of sorts, part of my mind “said” to another part of my mind, “A gigantic monster made of wind is coming toward you, really FAST!” I dreamily mused on that for a moment or two, at which point the half-awake part of my brain had waded through it, figured out the meaning, translated it, and yelled at me, Tornado!! waking me up fully and instantly. A few seconds later I heard it turn and go another direction. Later, people said one had come “so close” to us… but I already knew. The part that remained with me was the sense that “the monster made of wind” was alive in some fashion. I had never thought of it like that before. After last night, I actually believe this.

On the bright side, I would say that is proof positive that my cursed phase of RV has passed.

I live to serve. I want to know the universe. RV is an honor, a doorway to being introduced to infinite measures and combinations of energy and experience. Today, I am wondering how I could ever have thought of it in any other way.

Well officially, my long spell of pitiful RV has ended. But really, it didn’t end, it just reduced enough that I could at least see target contact in the session. Which isn’t to say the session didn’t suck; that would be too much to ask apparently. Although I get a few visuals I track clearly to the session, I still seem to be getting a tad more than I ask for when I focus on “the target.” In the last session, in the middle of minding my own business, I recorded:

a strange frog with unusually black bottomless eyes just showed up and caused all my lymphatics to pulse, to say I am dehydrated. I said ok and he went away. for goshsakes.

While I’m pleased that my body is talking to me—and did I mention it was similar to the amazing froglike creature I met during my meditations in January?—still, during session I’d really rather get session data. Isn’t that the norm?

What are these funky metaphysical things bugging me for? I mean, if I could have a good session and before or after, do something metaphysical, sure why not. It leaves me bemused and exasperated when it’s all over. Like, “Well the session sucked but I did meet a weird froglike critter speaking on behalf of my lymphatic system so it wasn’t a total loss.” Ha!Ha! There just aren’t words for how bizarre that is.

Well, since I’m being new Age: I got a whole bunch of the best essential oils—Young Living—and to get the discount I wanted I had to sign up a distributor, though outside the initial package it doesn’t really cost me anything I wouldn’t spend anyway. These things aren’t just pretty smells, they are the best quality stuff around, genuine technology of nature in a bottle. The lavender is actual medicine it works so well, the result on wounds is such an improvement over the part left alone nobody would believe me trying to explain it. The lemon cheers me up just sniffing it, and I’ve been putting a variety of oils on my chest and wrists and sometimes palms and soles of my feet. Though they are strong, I think it relaxes my body being exposed to the smell over the long run of a day, it feels that way anyway, it creates a sort of blissful languid effect.

I feel strange lately. I was half asleep last night when I half-opened my eyes and looked into the eyes of my cat, and I said—I have NO idea why—”I don’t want to die yet.” Go figure.

I had a dream I was in this intensely green orchard-like setting with these extremely orange things distributed through that might have been people and then there were these deep rich yellow pants—just pants, filled out, but no person in them!—walking around. I crack myself up ’cause I just have no idea what the heck any of this means.

Guess it’s time to start praying more proactively.

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?

I was doing a session, or rather I would have been had actual data been involved. (Sigh.) I was having a rather odd internal effect. I wrote: My mind feels curiously still. Not just like I’m not getting data, but like the whole “landscape of my mind” is literally “stilled,” artificially motionless, and absolutely nothing comes in or out.

It reminded me of the sense I have sometimes had during storm season, when I suddenly realize that it is unnaturally still and quiet, and I look at the sky worriedly, on the lookout for the gray-green tinge that bespeaks tornados. I wondered about this, and just then I “realized” a synchronicity of sorts:

My experience in the session blogged prior was that the girl was trying to avoid psychically seeing me. Trying to block out what was right there in front of her–me, another aspect of her. That was really the whole point of it, was her denial. She “refused to see.”

(I just remembered a dream I wrote about years ago where I grabbed some woman with long dark hair (aka… me) and was yelling in her face, in a near crying-rage of exasperation, “You must seeeeeeee! You MUST seeeeee!”)

Since the time of the session of the woman avoiding perceiving me, now suddenly in this new session I realized I was having the experience of “apparently” blocking out, rejecting, whatever psi data I allegedly wanted. I mused about this for a moment. I often get data that is more about the session or about me than about the target. As long as I realize that of course, that’s fine, and sometimes I ask for that. I wondered, could it be that the experience, which I clearly knew wasn’t the target at the time, was instead information or example/allegory about me? Could it be that I was trying to avoid “seeing an aspect of myself” in my psychic data?

I know, this is psychoanalysis instead of viewing, but there you go — much viewing eventually ends up becoming that if one is attempting to be ‘aware’ of themselves and grow.

I interact with data in sessions at times. Some of my most mind-blowing session experiences have been as a result of that. Recently I’ve had a reminder to myself that if I get something which is not data, that I will act on it; interact with it. So for example if I get a visual of a person doing something, I will interact with them if that is the seeming offer; if not, I will just rewind and imagine myself doing that thing, to sort of ‘gain rapport’ by mimicry. (E.g., I often ’see a door close’ or something. So, I go open it back up.) It often works surprisingly well.

I recalled that I had been to the left, and standing so a bit above, the girl at the spinnet. If she was some allegory to me—and hello, she was me, in the experience, was that a clue I wondered?!—then I would ‘act out’ that scenario again and see if anything useful came of it.

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.

It was a deal. What aspect of me might he be? I don’t know yet.

I stood up, he took my hand, and the landscape dissolved around us.

I found myself outside somewhere, and this thing ahead of me was truly bizarre looking. Like nothing I have ever seen in my life.

It was all puckered and vertically lined. Open at the top. Aol on volcano as it was just that shape, of the sort that are sort of short-fat with a notable opening at the top and verticle lines of wear around the edges. Except it was flexible, not hard like stone. And it seemed to be opening and closing in a cyclic way, as if there were activity, and energy going in and coming out, except hardly any energy, and it felt like old weary dried out thinning rubber. I had some sense that was not positive at all, but I couldn’t articulate it. I didn’t like it.

Instead of focusing on that I asked for more data and everything changed. I found myself flying high above an area and then coming down around the edge of a tall building that seemed like it was built somewhere ‘high’. Alas, then I was out of time for the session, so in the end I had no real session here — just a rather offbeat experience.

When I saw the feedback, I had the instant ’sense’ that the weird thing I had seen, had been the crown chakra of the person in the target photo, and that it is really yucky. It was like a cross between a volcano and a sphincter and it was opening and closing in a rhythym, but it seemed all dried out, old and worn, grey-brown. I don’t know how someone could be alive with a crown chakra like that. (Then again, see the feedback here. Maybe they can?)

I’m not going to claim that I viewed a chakra — since it has no feedback! — so perhaps that was only my imagination. Another session with zero viewing accomplished, but I suppose an interesting enough personal experience.

It occurred to me to wonder if perhaps this was a new, novel variant on the endless cycles of psychological resistance and denial to RV, but I decided no, I don’t think so. I feel in my gut that there are some things that need to be going on with me right now, and I am not meditating much, so they have nowhere to happen but during my sessions. Sounds like my viewing may give me a good reason to meditate, in the end!