Warcollier & how we draw

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

[waterway]

I was wandering the halls of the local community college where I teach a web-page design class, and noticed that there was a display of the paintings of one of the continuing education classes lined up on the wall.  It was a beginner oil or acrylic class, and there were the common seascapes and farm houses and such, all very nice.  As a kid I drew little comics and spent so much time drawing, my family and friends would often say "You should do this professionally".  So I took oil painting lessons with a local artist and did my seascapes, bowls of fruit and farm houses.  From there I realized I could never be a professional artist.   But I started to notice in my art that I drew and painted pieces of the picture I was trying to create.  I guess my art would be considered "Impressionism" cuz it shows my impression of reality on the canvas.  If I drew a face, I drew it in parts, and measured the parts to be in the right places, and if I was careful, it looked something like I was supposed to be drawing.  But in my comics especially, I drew a torso, attached an arm, attached a leg.... etc.  Then I'd look at it and say "That is a person".  Hopefully, others would too... :-/

So standing there in the hall, looking over these paintings and thinking... I realized that in Warcollier's research, what seemed to get "viewed" was often just those parts... the torso here, the leg over there, the arm over there.... often "out of context".

My point is.... could we gather a better understanding of how RV works if we had a better understanding of how the mind works as it draws or paints?  PJ, I know you have "issues" with your art.... but maybe this may help.

I am not an art expert (viewing my drawings would tell you that), but have any of you read research on how the brain works while art is being created or perceived?  Mr. Swann is an artist... has he written on this subject?  

[Anotherdreamer]

Some times in comparing my own drawings of RV targets and comparing them to the photo, I have noticed a shift of view.  Almost as if I had been drawing a reflection..  PS here...I just recently begun drawing them so I am not a seasoned remote veiw drawer.


About ten years ago I had the pleasure of visiting with an artist from Northern California.
Her gallery had an array of styles. But, one picture fascinated me on a deep level.  I stood looking at it for quite some time. Although the colors and theme were similar to the others, this one held me. The artist stood beside me and asked, “What are you thinking?”

“I don’t know.  There is something different.  I can’t place it.  Is this the same artist?”

“Yes,” she said. “I painted all of these. But, you are right.  This one is different.  I did this one while taking a class called painting from the right side of the brain.                         “ (It could have been the left side. I don’t remember)                    ‘I had no idea what I was painting during the class.  When we finished, the instructor turned the picture upside down and this is what it was.  I couldn’t have been more surprised.”  

The picture was of a beautiful American Indian woman standing in a forest.  

[waterway]

Excellent insight...scuze the pun... but I think I am gonna dust off the ol' "Drawing on the right side of the brain" book.  I know there is thread or two around here on that topic, I will re-read them as well.

[intuitwolf]

From Ingo Swan's "Everybody's Guide to Natural ESP: Unlocking the Extrasensory Power of Your Mind."
In it he discusses the pathways of ESP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Any information derived psychically from the second reality by the deeper self is first processed as imaging. Later in the chain of interpretation, the images are 'translated' into the language the individual normally uses. . . All the evidence points to the fact that when you are first trying to contact your own basic ESP core, it is more progressive to undercut the difficulties imposed by languaging, and allow the basic imaging processes to provide the first and most natural work."

"As I mentioned earlier, parapsychology is a higly verbalized science. While many of the targets parapsychologists use are in pictorial form, the subjects' responses are normally given in a language form. Subjects are asked to describe in words what they are 'seeing.' They are hardly ever asked to draw their responses. This is standard procedure in parapsychology, but most of the researchers cannot see that it forces the subjects to doubly process the psychic information they are getting. Once the basic image-laden psychic infomation leaves the psychic processes of wording, the mind enters into the response. A great deal of distortion and misrepresentation can and does take place while the mind seeks to translate the basic images into words."

"The well-developed psychic intuitively learns to release conscious wording in favor of perceiving basic images. With experience, the mind will learn how to integrate ESP information into its workings, and then wording will become easier. But if the basic imaging nature of the psychic is dropped out or ignored, as is so frequently the case, the individual will have a very difficult time in adequately experiencing ESP at its most basic level."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The same book also contains some very interesting material on sketches and how to look at what you've sketched to get a better idea of where you are at in your development of contact with the ESP core. By learning where you are at and how it feels when you are there, you will assist the conscious mind in allowing increased contact with that core.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Basic ESP is not different than any other human talent. Few of us can execute any talent easily at first. The pole vaulter cannot possibly clear the eighteen-foot mark until his entire system has learned to collaborate with the task. But he will never do it at all if he thinks that it is impossible, or that he has no pole-vaulting talent. It is only with practice that the various components of the system can come into phase with each other. The same is true for all sports, and performing arts as well."

"In my opinion, one of the greatest disservices to extrasensory perception is the fact that is has never been studied and compared with **other** human talents. It has always been thought of as such an astonishing thing that it's organic elements have not even been looked for. This has lead to the expectation that ESP either appears full-fledged or it is not there at all. "

"This is patently not the case. ESP is there, even if at a low stage, a stage so low that it does not get through the pathway."

"If your first attempts do not produce any recognizable ESP information, just take a deep breath and try again, or maybe wait for another day."

"As you gain in practice, you will discover that the psychic information pathway is very soft, if not mellow, in feeling, and you will learn which information to trust and work with. You will also begin to get a good idea of just how spontaneous the psychic information can be."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Aside from no information getting through, there are seven general hurdles that need to be kept in mind. I made a list for myself in 1973, and they are still applicable for every beginner."
[Inserted comment: I have omitted some commentary in the list to shorten it.]

1. Instances in which you will not get the object at all or even any part of it. Instead you'll get objects surrounding it.

2. Instances where you have replaced the the object with something it reminds you of. This type of 'mistake' is actually very common. With practice, you will soon be able to recognize, internally, when this is taking place.

3. There will be instances in which you get a lot of drawings or marks or words which do not make any sense to your consciousness. They will not 'go together' properly to make a recognizable picture drawing. Ingo refers to this as 'lack of fusion'. You get all the elements, but they did not fuse into an appropriate form. Lack of fusion frequently happens when the target is too complex. It tends to disappear after the ESP core becomes capable of handling complex information.

4. Sometimes in your drawing or writing (if there is any), you may have sketched the object quite well, but have called it something other than what it is. This happens when the conscious processes do not recognize the sketch, but are determined to call it something anyway.

5. Portions of the target are perceived, such as details but not the whole, or the general outline of the target, but not the details.

6. Often you will get only one part of the object while the remainder of it is not perceived.

7. Other times you will get a good correspondence to the ojbect, but there will be some distortion.

When none of these hurdles is blocking the pathway, many of you will experience instances of indisputable correspondence between your impressions and whatever the concealed object is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

Ingo also had a list of common characteristics of ESP picture drawings that he found when he studied examples (a great many of which are in the book). He says the list is not complete and you could probably add to it, but suggested that you use it when studying your own results.

"Don't just mentally compare, but actually write out next to each element the type of phenomenon it represents. This allows your conscious system to learn. As your core learns to cope with each of the many manifestations of it's raw talent, you will see patterns emerge."

Four general categories:
1) Error Contributions
     a) Some other thoughts that have nothing to do with the target or experiment.
     b) No contact or correspondence at all (barriers).
     c) Illusion or imagination.
     d) False guessing, or just guessing.
     
2) Associations:
     a) Not the object itself, but things associated with it or, in some cases, things that might be expected to be associated with it.
     b) Associations of feelings, etc.
     c) Something the object (or location) reminds you of.
     d) An image of something similar to the object.
     
3) Lack of Fusion
     a) All parts are correctly perceived, but will not connect to form a whole.
     b) Some parts are fused; others are not.
     c) Fusion is only approximate.
     d) Parts are incorrectly fused; all parts are there, but put together in such a way as to falsely create another image.
     
4) Accuracies
     a) Correct, in all aspects.
     b) Correct, but some distortion.
     c) Correct, but something else added.
     d) Correct, but some information missing.
     e) Correct, but information developed through two or more attempts.
     f) Only part or parts perceived.
     g) Details perceived, but not the whole.
     h) Correct relationships perceived.
     i) General idea correct.
     j) Correct, but overdeveloped.
     k) Correct, but elements reversed.
     

[waterway]

Excellent excerpt from the book.  I will have to put that one on my ever-growing reading list....

It again points at the need for practice, for a multitude of reasons... good reasons....  

[waterway]

Alright, I gots a question. :-/

What is the difference between Mr. Swann's two books, "Everybody's guide to natural ESP: Unlocking the Extrasensory Power of your mind" and  "Natural ESP;A Laymans guide to unlocking the Extrasensory Power of your mind"

They have different ISBNs, but darn similar titles....

[waterway]

Still eager to learn the difference in those two Swann books.

But back on topic, I was reading Russell Targ's 1994 paper on PSI, Sight and Awareness

In discussing Robert McKim's book Experiences in Visual Thinking Dr. Targ comments:

"McKim's book makes it convincingly clear why artists are often our best psychic subjects.  They are not necessarily more psychic than the rest of us; however, they have much greater control over their visual imagery process, through which almost all psychic data are mediated."

[PJ]

Targ isn't a doctor/PhD, just a note of trivia. He has a few misc. docs on his website for those interested, http://www.espresearch.com

Research suggests (I am told, haven't a ref off the top) that men often do better with sketching targets and women with verbalizing information about targets.   I find that interesting.

In an RV Oasis interview with Joe McMoneagle, when asked what % of psychology he thought related to psi talent, he said, "all of it."  Recently you posted notes on his comments in a lecture where he suggested that if a person truly KNEW they could view, they could; this seems to go back to the psychology thing.  Perhaps the real issue isn't teaching people how to RV but teaching them how to stop-stopping psi in their overall life.  Perhaps we are already carrying such filters that most of our efforts toward both doing and understanding need first for us to figure out how to remove some of those filters.

PJ

[Gene]

PJ,

I have real respect for your opinions in this area, but for the life of me I just can't buy the if you think you can then you can.  If this were true then then the best viewers would be the ones who most believed they could do it.  Where I think that is shown wrong is by the numerous individuals some self deluded, some insane, who waft into these boards from time to time talking things like "I've always RVed just didn't know what it was called" etc etc.

I think real world experience in this field shows that two things seem to make one a good viewer; one is raw talent the other is practice.  I just don't buy that J. McMoneagle is good solely because he knows he's good or somehow thinks he can more than most anyone else on the planet.  As I said above there are all manner of would be gurus and egomaniacs who would claim their abilities with this, but when you look at real world results it is the people who practice and commit themselves to this the most that seem to be the best.

Now part of the problem here in arguing this can be you could just say, well he DOES believe he can do it hence he can.  It reminds me a bit of the name it and claim it faith movement one can witness in some Christian circles.  Now let me state emphatically I am not accusing you of being one of them nor anything like that; I'm just using one of their arguments for illustrative purposes.

Basically the argument goes if you have true faith God will make you well, rich, married to a beautiful person, just fill in the blank etc etc; then He will do it.  If you don't have what  you want or are sick or poor etc then you clearly just haven't claimed it with proper faith.  CRAPOLA!!!

In a sentence I believe what makes one good in this field is talent and hard work.  Yes non belief can affect one and even provide results like psi missing for a period of time, but in the end doing it over and over and over is what will bring you results.  Will this get rid of psychological barriers, sure.  But I'm saying that getting rid of the psychological barriers is not the primary thing that makes the person better at it.

Gene

[waterway]

Targ isn't a doctor/PhD, just a note of trivia.

When I proof-read my post I noticed I put the Dr. in front of his name and questioned myself "Have I ever seen him referred to as Dr.?" and then worried about being wrong... but not enough worry to actually look it up.  Looks like I should have gone with my intuition to check.

Regarding believing and being, it seems Gene is right in saying that practice and skill improve RV, but I think PJ makes a strong point in earlier posts where she stresses the need for practice to establish "knowing" in the RVer, for to do RV you have to know you can RV.  

Practice and doing make it real, and I think practice and doing change your mind.  

Back to visuals.... Mr. McMoneagle described his RV sessions as working with lots of "meaningless" raw data, and holding off interpretting as long as possible.  In my own better RV events, it was from visual images, simple shapes I saw in my mind's eye, that were the most help.  I kept going back to the well for more simple shapes or impressions, using them for "ideograms" or anchors to the actual tasked picture.  In my closed eyes I see a spiral.  I draw a spiral, and go get other images.  I see a circle, I draw a circle.  I keep this up and later go back to my pictures, to that collection of simple shapes, and say "What is that?"  The circle is a moon, a planet, a sphere in space.  Its not a pie, its not a wheel, its not a cookie.  The spiral is something in space too.  I look at the task feedback, its a spiral galaxy photo taken by a space-based telescope.  

Again, working with visual info seems to be a great boon, and that process seems to be common in CRV and ERV.