Future Memory and RV

Project Home Page

RVwebForum

TKR @the Dojo Psi

Help make it possible for everyone.

RV CHAT

Monday Nights
9:30-11:30pm Eastern
6:30-8:30pm Pacific
dojopsi.com/chat/

Weekly RV Chat

CS Labs
Ingo Swann
Joe McMoneagle

Baylands Nature Preserve
Pete's Harbor Restaurant
Lucid Dream Example
Radio Listening Post
Test-Bed Trials
Video ABC Put to the Test

The Home Made Viewer

P.I.A.

TKR Blog

Noetic Vision

Serious Kilowatt

Red Cairo

Cosmic Spoon

Psychic Journey

Psyforce

Remote Review

MindBlogging

BadMoJoe

Dojo Blog

Firedocs RV Blog

the McMoneagles

LFR/CSL

RV Roast (alt)

RV Library

[Glyn]

Hello all,

Some of you will know that I am interested in J W Dunne's theory about Future Memory. His book "An Experiment with Time" is advertised on this site. No, I'm not getting paid to advertise  .

RV (IMO) appears to be precognition, based on the feedback and other 'happenings' around feedback time, and  FM may well be the means by which this functions....or if not sole, then at least plays a part. However, I am not closed to the notion that whatever is behind psi-perception may not be FM whatsoever....but just appear to be.  None of my ideas are set in stone. The idea of a zero point field interests me too, and if we can get access to our memories of the future, then that may even play a part. This sort of thinking is what I want to explore.

I've gone on about FM now and again on quite a few email lists..not that anyone takes a lot of notice though.... so I figured (I don't give up easily), that I may as well drone on about it here too  .  If it's in one place then those who are not interested can ignore at their leisure.

Anyway, I thought I'd start this thread mainly so I can put down my thoughts on FM from time to time (excuse the pun). With a bit of luck though some others may contribute their own thoughts  too; polite ones only please  

For starters my next mail is an overview of what FM is all about.

Kind regards,
Glyn

[Glyn]

FUTURE MEMORY

Well I first became interested in this when I read Dunne's "An Experiment With Time" in the early seventies. My edition of his book says that the first publication of his theory was in 1927. He was the first to come up with the idea, but there have been others who have published books with similar themes (maybe some based on his original concept) over the last decade or so. Dunne’s theory is of the nature of time itself. Rather than it being linear (running past to future) he thought time was serial (and overlapping), and this in turn explains why things such as premonition are possible....even premonitions of times far beyond the death of the 'seer'. So, the the old ‘Pat Price Rved something beyond the time of his death so FM can’t apply’…chestnut could be explained (in the terms of the Dunne’s theory that is. You'll need to read the book if interested, because I am ashamed to admit that I find it complicated to understand let alone explain…but it is the concept of FM itself that intrigues me, and 'rings a bell' :-).

The best illustration I have ever heard of Future Memory at work is from Dunne's book itself. It's a bit long, so I will use my own words to paraphrase. He talks about a dream, but could just as well be talking about RV (especially ERV).

One night in 1902 Dunne had a dream. He seemed to be standing on a high mountain. There were little fissures giving off jets of vapour spouting upwards. In his dream he recognised the place as an island of which he had dreamed before, an island in imminent peril from a volcano. He suddenly realised that it was going to blow up!

He was seized by a desire to rescue the FOUR THOUSAND (the number was in his mind) unsuspecting inhabitants. He had to get them off in ships, and there followed a nightmare which consisted of his efforts trying to persuade authorities to despatch vessels to do so….and he was thwarted at each turn. Throughout the dream the number of people in danger (4000) absolutely obsessed him, and he repeated it to everyone he met (in the dream), and as he awoke he found he was even shouting out about the four thousand people that he had to rescue.

Some  time later (after the night of the dream..he's not sure how long), he sees a copy of the 'Daily Telegraph', which reported a major volcano disaster in Martinique. Ships were involved in rescuing the inhabitants, and it was stated that  there was a loss of FOUR THOUSAND lives. Later copies reported revised figures, but Dunne was proud of his prophetic dream, it fitted so well, even (especially) the figure of 4000.  He was pleased with himself…….that is until one day in the future when he was copying out the original paragraph from the newspaper (perhaps for some of his research, although he doesn't say), and realised to his dismay that the figure first reported in the newspaper was FORTY THOUSAND.....he had misread it. However…that moment didn't come until *fifteen years*  after the event!!

OK......he had believed the newspaper article had said 'four thousand' for 15 years!  He was upset (understandably so),because his ' prophetic' dream was now wrong in it's most important aspect. He got to thinking however….where then did he get the four thousand in his dream? Why was it so important; have so much significance? He eventually came to an idea...........he came to believe that his dream of the future was not of the island, not of the event itself......but of  the newspaper article he first saw.....and not only that either. It appeared that he had had dreamed  of his *memory* of reading the article; which included his mistake of misreading the number as 4,000!

He had accessed his 'future memory'. Simple eh?
 
Maybe RV works like that.  If so, I think accuracy  may depend on how far you go into your own future to access your own memory of the event/feedback/outcome....and at what stage in the future you retrieve the memories from. (eg. If Dunne had gone forward 15 years he may have got the right number :-)). This may be particularly important in ARV if going after outcomes of events...eg football results.....you must make sure you don't just get the score at half-time:-)..

I first I thought that this must mean that we only view the feedback (or rather our memory of seeing the feedback, and everything attached to the original feedback of a target; ie web-pages, discussions etc..because it is all part of the ongoing cumulative, and altering, memory), but people have reported bilocation  and experiences of  *being* at the site, so how does that fit in? Well, anyone who has had a lucid dream will attest to how wonderful the brain is at putting together 'universes' of it's own creation and immersing you in them. It could also do this with a memory, and if the memory is based on fact then the ‘immersion’ would appear real.

FM explains so much IMO. For example why things are so vague, unclear,  distorted...that there appears to be overlay, associations, AOL...Let's face it, what real memories are uncluttered? Especially over time. They pick up all sorts of baggage, and even become totally distorted to the point of being false. This may be  what we are dealing with in RV, all the time. If only more people would consider it…..it deserves serious consideration.

Glyn

[energycritter]

Hey Glyn, I have yet to finish reading your second post of this thread, but, I wanted to jump in and first say that my wife had starting talking down this vain the other day.

I told her about T-bone's session with the.....OH..crap, I can not remember what the target was called, anyway.....his sister gave him the target and he did great.

Well, my wife thought of the future memory thing when we were discussing how well he did. She figured that he had a memory of the target since the session seemed so accurate.

Not only was it accurate, the accuracy related to the exact locations of his visit to the target. It seemed that he was remembering his future visit when he was doing his RV session in the past. I do not know.....it just came up and we figured that the idea of all time existing at the same time, or whatever, was why he could access the perfect memory of the target as he saw it in the future when he visited the target after the session, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Anyway, I like playing with the idea....I will now get some work done and then read the rest of your second post....well, I will most likely not get any wrok done...

Hey T-bone....are you there..?..have you ever considered this future memory idea as it relates to the target I mentioned?

BC/EC

[T-bone]

Good Morning All  

I don't think it has a whole lot to do with it EC.  I've RV'd targets sucessfuly before without actualy going to the target area, for that matter, there have been a few I never got any feedback on other than a confirmation of a "hit".  I think they are two different things that may sometime overlap, but one does not seem dependent on the other, if that makes any sense.

[energycritter]

Hey T-B.....that is understandable....

I guess it just seemed like your hit was so connected to how you actually ended up seeing it all.

Cool session you had, nonetheless.....

BC/EC

[PJ]

Yup, seeing the future is a big impact it appears.

On a target mentioned elsewhere on the board, of Mae West, when I first saw the feedback, which was incredibly tiny and poor graphic, I actually though there was a man in uniform on the left, and her on the right, and then something between then (a goblet she was holding).  In the session I described, initially, two people with something between them.  

On feedback I was instantly aware that this was correct.  Then later was aware that this was totally wrong, lol.  That has happened to me more than once--that my session seemed correct for 5 seconds, then I realized I was seeing the FB totally wrong.  

The REAL question is, was the session wrong because I saw the FB wrong, or did I see the FB wrong because I was so aware of my session data? :-)  That is a question Dunne didn't think to ask, I suspect. ;-)

It's well known that feedback can have a big effect on a viewer, although the degree depends on the viewer.  More important is the issue of what the viewer accepts as 'validation' (feedback).  

A viewer who accepts data another person got, or a viewer they respect got, as validation, is far more likely to consider that stuff 'feedback' on a psychological level, even if it's not officially.  This can be a real problem, since it is often difficult to keep all info except the formal feedback point from a viewer for all eternity of course.

If a viewer tends to get data based on what they validate as feedback and that scope is wide, then anything they hear about that target, including erroneous information, for the next 20 years may end up in the session.  Although this comes under the heading of feedback, this is an example of a real problematic "delineation of the target", actually.  It should be very clear prior to a session what the target is, and what the feedback is.

RV practice in a decent protocol resolves most feedback issues (beyond the fact that all feedbacks are 'partial' in some sense, of course).  There is one target: there is one set of feedback.  That feedback might have lots of components if desired (although most sessions are done on a specific aspect of something, and FB should be geared to the tasked session), but in any case, the feedback if it exists, for practice, is pre-determined.

In RV *practice*--using just photo practice here as the example, as there are other types of feedback and other types of tasking even on photo FB, in practice-- the goal is to describe 'the focus of the photo at the time the photo was taken'.  So it doesn't matter what is outside the camera focus; the session is specifically about what is either captured in, or inferred by what is captured in, the feedback itself.  That doesn't mean you're viewing the picture-on-paper, but it does mean that by nature, your tasking is directed to what has, or is inferred by, actual feedback (that pic on paper).  The act of RV will make it obvious quickly that you are not viewing the paper, because there is too much sensory and even 'experience' that are IN the target.

Future memory may be at work in RV, as I suspect it is a big part of psi across the board--not all, but much.

A good way to really screw up a viewer in training is to regularly screw up their feedback.  The whole point of practice with feedback is basic learning theory: action, response, correction(feedback).  It ain't rocket science.  But when this loop gets messed up, it's the viewer that pays.  Their psychology after awhile of that is not learning to focus intent or validation solely on what is objective feedback and the original intent, but rather, on whatever the tasker says about the session at any point, and whatever else might be in any way relevant to the target (but isn't part of the focus).  

Remote Viewing in my view comes down to learning how to pay attention in a way that excludes nearly all of the infinite universe except one thing, the target info.  It's a little blurry at the sides because that one thing is not in a vaccuum, it's attached to lots of other things, and some degree of that connection is both/neither and might come through.  But the whole point is training the intent, and the means of training is through very clear feedback, so it is an interactive experience.  This learning theory model works for anything, not just RV.  And messing up the feedback part of the loop will mess up the learning process for anything, not just RV.

There are two time points to best muddle feedback: at the initial point of FB ("Well the target was the moon, but while making this tasking there was a black cat on my desk, and I was looking at the print of 'starry starry night' on my wall while I considered 9/11 and the implications of it and worried about my mother who is ill and what would become of her horses.") and after FB ("Well you got A which wasn't in the FB but that's actually true, and here is a news article with 101 other points on or related to the topic in case it's interesting to you, and you got X which seems totally wrong but it's not because I was thinking about that at the time I did this tasking.")  Either of those examples violates what could be considered a decent RV protocol--and if you blow the protocol, it isn't RV; it may be psychic, but RV got a good reputation BECAUSE considerations like this were taken seriously and upheld.  

They are not always nowdays in the layman's field, which often demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about the topic, and kind of walks RV back into the 'plain psychic' stuff it always was, except with some method attached.

The more insidious part of the above examples is that the viewer is being trained, gradually, to consider the validation of the tasker/trainer to be *more relevant than the factual feedback* they were given officially.  If you want to build a cult this is great, but if you want viewers who can work independently, it's not the approach of choice.  

It also tends to train the viewer to greatly 'diffuse' the intent of the tasker, and happily pick up every stray thought they might have, and any remote aspect that could be considered part of the target, rather than focusing on--and only validating--the official intent.

It tends to create viewers who are fragile flowers,  dependent on a perfect process, and a zen-level tasker, because the slightest variance in process or tasker intent is sure to end up in their session.  This is the polar opposite of what someone should want to train into a viewer -- a viewer should be as independent, strong-willed, focused on intent-only, focus-only, as humanly possible.  Everything in a training process should be set up to facilitate that.

As a last note, the primary work in RV practice is the change of belief systems.  The primary change comes from very specific, as immediate as possible, hard feedback, under double-blind conditions. This forces the psychology to deal with it. There are no 'outs'. There is no amount of subconscious subterfuge that will escape having beliefs modified by this repeated proof (the mind will TRY--it's up to the viewer not to let it).  

The more you open up feedback (the viewer's future as concerns a session), the less you demand the mind to deal with quick specific feedback, and the less change in fundamental belief systems happens.  Which is to say, the less actual value to the viewer's psychology of the RV practice process.

Q. What part of RV 'talent' do you think is psychology?
A.  All of it.
-- Joe McMoneagle

A real interest in what effect the future has on remote viewing--both the development of viewers, and the results in a session--can lead to a lot of insight.  I think FM is a very interesting topic.

PJ

[energycritter]

OK...that was meaty....I am intending digestive enzymes into my head at this moment so that I can get the full impact of that.

too cool.....

good stuff for sure.....

BC/EC

[Glyn]

..Yes, very meaty indeed. Gotta go out, so will have to get back later, but I feel a great discussion coming on.
:-).


Later,
Grins from
Glyn

[energycritter]

While driving home last night I did a lot of thinking about this subject regarding one of my sessions.

The first time I saw the FB the picture was very small. What I drew was solid and dark colored and the FB rendered that as I had drawn it. I thought....cool.....but, then I double clicked on the picture to enlarge it and the dark areas lightened up and it became evident that the dark area was actually brown and was not solid as I had drawn it but a row of pillars that appeared to be solid when the picture was small.

Same question applied....was I getting data in my session that came from FM or was my FB affected by my session.

T-Bone, I know you said that your's was not FM...and I understand that....but, I was talking with my wife last night about it and I hope you do not mind, but, we piled lots of conjecture on top of your session while rereading PJ's post from above and we still considered it very odd that your session was how it was.

You were tasked with a fragment of text that mentioned the name of the target. You did not have a picture. So, it seems as if the data, if it were not from FM, would be of the image that would come to mind when a person thinks of that target or how the target would appear if it were to be a photo. But, your data was of exactly what you saw when you vivisted the target and it came to you in your session in the order that you saw it.

You first approached the front of the visitor's entrance, realised your data was good, then proceeded to the top and saw the rest of your data, as it appeared during your session.

It could have nothing to do with FM, but, it just presents such a good case to play with, in a way.

This is a fun way to look at things like this.

Wild wild stuff.....

T-bone....I hope you do not mind me using your session in this discussion in a way that contradicts your opinion.

I am just playing around with the ideas.

Cheers all......BC/EC

[T-bone]

No biggy EC,

Like I said before, for me, it's not about the hows or whys anymore.  It's about the fact that I KNOW.  I HAVE DONE IT, and CAN DO IT.  That's something nobody can take away from me.

Until the "Mainstream" science folks come down off their pedistals and open their minds to accept that RV and other PSI does exist, start funding some UNBIASED mainstream investingating projects to validate and FULLY investigate ALL of these so-called "phenomonon", then publish the results for all to see, my guess is we will be guessing and theorizing about it untill we are all old and grey.