I actually totally missed the first page of this thread! So I had a completely different idea of what it was all about, sorry about that.

Very cool about the plant's salvation via psi. :-)

In case folks are in the mood to read more about Ingo - aside from Daz's great link - this is a google search string that finds the hits on his name on the dojopsi sites (mostly this forum). 

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=004949091310619201526%3Abjenlzogfp4&ie=UTF-8&q=ingo+swann&sa=Search&siteurl=127.0.0.1%3A8500%2Fdojopsi.com%2Ftkr%2Frv%2Fstaff%2Findex.cfm&ref=127.0.0.1%3A8500%2Fdojopsi.com%2Ftkr%2Frv%2F_2012d_landing.cfm%3FM%3D0%26SS%3D0%26tn%3D%26id%3D0%26CFID%3D10403%26CFTOKEN%3D7de5b23d0dd1745b-2248112E-B4B1-10A0-89D35F01171F26ED%26jsessionid%3D843049e07aebe6e727c139325634f656d858&ss=1331j262919j10#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=ingo%20swann&gsc.page=1

Realistically whether you use tarot or TRV the end-result you need to come up with is factual information. How a person gets there is relevant only to them.

The personal process is only the focus because commercial and intelligence interests lean hard on making it the focus. That may be in part because focusing on actually presenting our data so it was interesting and clear to others, and actually comparing and competing, might drive progress in the field.

As long as nobody else (public) much bothers to find interest and look at what we're doing, because viewers think everybody just-like-them actually wants to look at 27 pages of format-layout handwritten scrawling (versus a typed logical outline presentation with scanned sketches...); and as long as our focus isn't on the end-result outcome, and instead is on the myriad attention-sucking variants of personal process which can become endless politics and commercial competition and completely overshadow that tiny detail about simple, clear, end-result factual data obtained in protocol; then as a field we're not going to be dangerous to very many secrets.

I've known people to get amazing data via tarot, by the way. Not because they are just looking at a card but because they have a larger understanding for interpretation, which they filter through their innate psi gut-feeling about something. I wouldn't knock the oldstyle psychic arts, most of them developed and lasted for many many centuries for fairly good reason. (Edited to add: ) What they lacked, and what RV has to compensate for all that, is protocol, by which I mean the logical science-based process for context.

 

Alex you missed a crucial element I mentioned:

In the way I set it up, the JUDGE sees the sessions.
The Project Manager (PM) does not.
It is the PM that later sees a concept and goes and chooses a target for it.
He doesn't even see the other concepts let alone the sessions.
(Though he may choose to see the concept at the start, and modify them to be more dissimilar.)

Randomly was the wrong word though, I agree; what I meant was "the PM would search on the target concept and allow any of a myriad of very different photographs to potentially be his choice."

PJ

Sorry Katz!  It's a brilliant idea. 

I was setting up the project management site initially for ARV and Marv mentioned that. I guess I "assumed" -- oops! My bad, not his.

Anyway it does, as Jon noted, rule out totally low level sessions. A few words of color and generalized shapes are not going to be good enough. One is going to have to get the solid gestalt (person, manmade, water, for example) or something else even more specific to match a discrete concept rather than a photo.

I don't consider this a bad thing, other than the smaller number of viewers who can do it.

LOL!  Daz that's awesome!

Now he can truly become a legend.

Have fun Ingo. I hear the afterlife is a big party.

ROFL!  OMG this was so funny.

I will say that viewers are prone for distinctly individual reasons to see any number of things. Some see 'charades', people 'acting out' elements of the target, and perhaps that is just as odd, but I do that and have met other viewers who do.

Never heard of the eyes but it wouldn't surprise me that people have their own psychology about it.

They are private projects, not public, that is why.

Hello Pat/MetaGor,

Welcome to TKR.

> I've read a bunch and I see there are some serious and thoughtful minds here.

Yes... TKR is open to everyone so it has the spectrum, for better and worse. :-)

> I've read with interest some of Daz's threads and followed his advice to download a few pdf's and I'm in the process of reading them to familiarize myself with the process of CRV. I like the idea of structure as it seems to help immensely with measurement and to track progress.

The 'logical' element of psi methodology for RV is probably the greatest attractor in the field. Sometimes the point of greatest debate too. Daz has worked hard to make a lot of stuff open source and he has a big site at http://www.remoteviewed.com with RV info, as well as a cool magazine at http://eightmartinis.com about RV.

> exercises and techniques to learn to communicate with my subconscious, and control my mental states

You're probably already familiar with this, but about 20-odd years ago I found Edwin Steinbrecher's "The Inner Guide Meditation," which eventually led to internally-guided but 'open format' (no longer much structured) inner work, and eventually to internal guidance clearly angelic. (I've never really been sure if the changing inner guides eventually became genuinely angelic, or if I simply upgraded internally to finally being able to perceive that element.) It's a good doorway or was for me anyway. Although my seemingly spontaneous experiences turn out after the fact to be by-the-book QBL (cabala), which is where it overlays with freemasonry (why I bring it up).

To me, now, my archetype work and viewing seem like just focusing on a different angle within the same thing. The mental model of how you approach something like viewing is truly yours to design; you don't necessarily have to accept the packaging you may find it in. (Not dissing that. Just sayin.)

> master the process of CRV and I believe I will be successful.

It is easy to be successful at the methodology. Success at psi to the degree most people want within a full protocol tends to be a significant time-curve investment, fwiw...

> the original aims of the order of Freemasons

Crowley had some (humorous) comments on this. Mostly that they did rituals for a given thing and nothing happened and for some reason they thought this was normal. ;-) Masons are (allegedly from many I've known in the group, some family) in great part a social (somewhat more exoteric) club with tradition now as opposed to a spiritual (truly esoteric) order. Then again I suppose many things can be what you make them. There are always people who are more profound or more shallow in any larger group (e.g. I've known tiny groups of christian mystics who were healers believing in reincarnation to be part of baptist churches, albeit not obviously, of course).

There are other orders that in many cases were either based on freemasonry or a sort of returned-to-fundamentals-it-allegedly-lost, that may have some of the hidden-meaning you seem to be looking for. Off the top the most obvious are Rosicrucians (AMoRC), Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO), and Golden Dawn (GD)). If you actually want to see some of their traditions and meanings easily, you might look up Regardie's book on the Golden Dawn for example (it's expensive here but I'm sure you can find an alternative http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Golden-Dawn-System-Magic/dp/1935150804/ ).

I might add that the inner guide work, whether literally or loosely based on Steinbrecher's approach mentioned above, is really an excellent doorway for seeking intuitive knowledge and guidance about anything.

> I can see a small group of men RV'ing the symbols, legends, personalities and places of Freemasons and gathering new, or perhaps more detailed old views of Masonic targets.

Perhaps. In my observation, remote viewing as a protocol is most ideally designed for targets which are fairly literal and ideally, have at least a percentage of feedback (so there is at least context for some assumptions, for evaluation). Personalities and places could fall into this category.

When it comes to things like symbols and legends, you're instantly in the archetypes world. Subjectively-valid but not necessarily objectively meaningful or historically accurate results, in my opinion (which is just my opinion of course).

I consider all data symbolic, because I consider reality itself to be symbolic -- we just have the convenience of symbols we recognize the patterns of well enough on the "outside" to see that they match -- but it'll probably be a lot more obvious as "symbolic and subjective" when you get to targets like 'symbols and legends'.

Best wishes,
PJ