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'.