When do you commit to an integrating scenario?

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

[LianS]

I got a question which probably just reflects my novice status in RV, so I'm eager to hear all your comments on this:

My observation has been that making contact with the target and getting "some" correct data is almost universal; but being able to move off the safe path of qualia description and into element integration (which requires at least some identification of the objects, hence commitment to a certain line of thought) is the true make-or-break  point in the session.

I know different schools treat AOL differently, but at some point everyone has to take this leap and commit to a certain "scenario" - which basically means that you must choose a particular set of elements and a particular interpretation for these elements, then filter the rest of the session through the prism of this given choice. How do you decide which elements and interpretation are the most likely to be correct - that is, which part of the early data becomes the fulcrum point of the session?  


Thanks!

Lian

[Fire]

Howdy Lian,

Hmmn.  Well, just my two cents here. One of the subtle points of CRV at least, is that what are called AOL's--data with potential "analytical overlay"--may be different at different points in the session.

When you first begin a session, most people might get 'water' for a target with water, but they don't declare that as AOL.  Yet, water is as much a noun as 'car', right?  And 'car' would be marked AOL.  That's an approach to degree of target contact--certain data types are common initially, and data tends to come in a general type-sequence (this is NOT set in stone, but is often the case, and can be trained to be a bit more the case), which is why CRV is set up in the stages it is. Gestalts are likely to come in as initial data, so they are not considered AOL, while more highly-processed nouns generally are.

Later in the session, once target contact has had awhile to develop further, nouns that would be noted as potential AOL early in the session are not.  By that time, it is assumed that target contact has reached the depth where that kind of information really IS what is perceived.  As target contact deepens, the viewer usually has a clearer idea about data, and more ability to pick up complexities, etc.

In CRV, marking AOL is a note as much for the viewer as anything; it's like a reminder, "don't get attached to this." It it not a statement on what is accurate.  You don't know what is accurate.  It's just a heads-up, and later in the session, recognizing AOL may prompt using stage5 tools to yank more or better data out of it.

In the TDS method, AOLs aren't declared; my sense is that Calabrese interpreted marking something AOL as itself being a form of analytical judgement about data, at a time when the viewer really didn't have enough target contact to judge what was accurate or not.  I do find that not worrying about it has its own rewards, given for me, anything analytical or judgemental is a real problem in sessions, I've got too much of that already just by nature of personality.

For people working what my friends and I have long called "The NIKE method: Just do it!" (no formal RV method), the thing to remember is that making any judgement about data is the vulnerable point of a session. It is usually the feeling of need to "go with a given scenario" that your analytical mind is building that harms a session. But if you are getting that context via PSI, then that's the way you should be going.  

Ongoing practice makes the higher levels of data (in deeper contact / often later in session) more common--initially, many viewers don't get a lot of complexity or contextual setting; but with practice, more facile ability develops in the "allowing", sessions can lengthen, and higher-level data will start becoming more apparent.

So to give a concrete example, if you write down that there is a biological (or 'person' in the NIKE method), if you really have no clue whether this is likely to be accurate or not, then you don't really have a strong sense of it; you are not in close enough target contact.  You need some more session time to deepen contact.  Describing a person at that point could lead you into AOL-Drive (having your whole data session be interpreted via an assumption and/or "driven" by it) if it's wrong.  But if you really do FEEL LIKE there is a person in the target, then those feelings, that stronger sense, is what you want to lock into to try and break out some more information about the person.

At no point in a session, not even at the end, is a viewer 'supposed to' figure out what the target is.  We aren't all Joe McMoneagle lol.  (Great interview with him in your Journal by the way!  [for readers: current interview: http://www.emergentmind.org/mcmoneagle_II2.htm ])

The goal in RV is to 'describe, not identify'.  And frankly, I'd rather have pages of descriptive data than a brief page that then names the target.  In many operational settings, the ops tasker already knows the primary nature of the target (say it's a person, or event, or an offshore boat, or...) -- what they don't know is all the detail.  

So all I can say is, if you don't feel enough target contact to be sure a given element is IN the target, don't "make a logical decision" that this is the target and 'commit' to it and describe it.  Once you feel strongly that is in the target, you still aren't making a 'logical' decision that this is the target, but you should have more ability to 'probe your feelings' and pull out more information about that element.

As for the target overall, it is rare that target contact gets to the point of having a totally clear, contextual understanding of a whole target/tasking.  When that does happen, in my own experience it's a spontaneous ROTE as Bob Monroe called them, basically a gigantic thoughtball (including a sense of being IN the target) that just bursts inside me and alas, usually goes by too fast to catch it all--but it's such a cool experience that I usually don't even care if I screw it up, I'm so happy just to have it, lol!

PJ

[Bill_Ray]

I got a question which probably just reflects my novice status in RV, so I'm eager to hear all your comments on this:

My observation has been that making contact with the target and getting "some" correct data is almost universal; but being able to move off the safe path of qualia description and into element integration (which requires at least some identification of the objects, hence commitment to a certain line of thought) is the true make-or-break  point in the session.

I know different schools treat AOL differently, but at some point everyone has to take this leap and commit to a certain "scenario" - which basically means that you must choose a particular set of elements and a particular interpretation for these elements, then filter the rest of the session through the prism of this given choice. How do you decide which elements and interpretation are the most likely to be correct - that is, which part of the early data becomes the fulcrum point of the session?  


Thanks!

Lian

[Bill_Ray]

Hi Lian and All
Good question.  Two answers.  The first, which does not help you now, is experience.  The second is that as a viewer you do not make deceisions, you just report data.  You just fearlessly follow where that leads you.  Fearlessly being the key word here.  Fear of being wrong (looking foolish) makes us (myself included) hedge our bets.  The first time this usually manifests itself during a session is early on when you report that there is or there is not water at the site.  If I report water and there is no water then I AM WRONG.  What has happened is that now I am thinking and when I am thinking I am not viewing.  I think the key here is to give yourself permission to be wrong.  I just report information from the site, someone else will analyze it and if I am wrong I can still be a good person.  Remote Viewing shopuld be fun (even operationally), so give it your best shot and enjoy the magic.
slainte
Bill Ray

[I edited out about a zillion line returns in here for no apparent reason. - PJ]

[Gecko]

I have to agree with Bill_Ray.  In the session you don't commit or try to analyze.  Just write down whatever you get no matter how weird or contradictory or impossible it may seem.  It's sort of like art.  It's only when you really let the spirit take you that you can spit out the really good stuff.   If you overanalyze, you stifle it.  I think we tend to make sessions way more harder than they really should be.  

However, there are two times when I do use a bit of analysis.  ONe thing I do during the session is kinda keep an eye out on how things feel and come to me and will note down anything that seems extra strong or maybe similar to other times.  Like I have a certain thing I come up with when I want to say that somone is an observer of an event.  So I might note down in the session that I have in the past got that thing for that aspect of a target.   WIth practice, I've noticed that different things feel different in the session and that can help indicate what things mean.  But during the session, I just write stuff down and keep my analysis to what I am thinking about and getting, and do not try to analyze what I think the target is.  It's sorta like a process of transcription.  I try to spend most of my time taking stuff down accurately and fully while leaving nothing out, some of my time noting various inflections and feelings, and very little time passing judgement on what it might actually mean.  

Then when I'm all done and it's time to write the summary, THAT is when I try to pass judgement on stuff I have written and what it might mean and come up with some kind of vaguely coherent conglomeration of the main aspects.  And then later if an analyst gets it, that person can take the analytical aspects even further.
-E

[LianS]

Thanks guys, this is basically what I've been trying to do as well.

I started out with the NIKE method too (great name, whoever came up with it    and went about the target as if starting the session over and over again, assuming that each set of data had already some elements of distortion in it due to conscious processing. Then certain elements seemed to present themselves over and over, so I would assume that these were the correct ones, and went with them.

It's like a sort of slide show for me most of the time - say first I see two long, white "volumes" on the R and L sides of the page; then I keep projecting the slide, and these two volumes are still there, looking more and more like marble columns with the detail slowly emerging, while other things that I saw earlier are not - so those get discarded. As I keep refocusing on the target, I sense that there is light of a certain quality (noon, sunset, etc) - and if it's still there after several more projections, I write it down; then I might sense that there's a horizontal/oblique break in the page, at a certain height or position (street? water horizon?) - you get the gist. It's like hundreds  of slides superimpsed on each other, and what gets reinforced remains there and gets sharper, what doesn't  fades away.

But sometimes you get "families" of impressions that seem to follow different lines and never come together into a consistent gestalt - chances being that one is the right track and the other is off into AOL overdrive.  I was just wondering whether later in the process there comes a point, at least for some schools, where in order to progress to the next stage you actually have to make a decision, explicit or not, as to "what" the target is. The problem is - I can continue to collect information by asking non-specific questions (like "what kind of emotion do you feel?", or "move ten meters above the target" - but at some point in order to probe further I have to decide whether the square dark hard object with openings on the side is a building or a phone jack - because if I try to "enter" it, how I interpret what I see from this point on, the scale and significance of things, will be completely dependent on what I've decided up to this moment.  

Is this occasional inability to converge on the likely overall NATURE of the target something that gets ironed out with many years of experience, or do  even the most advanced viewers get caught "taking the wrong turn" - and if so, at what point in the session is that most likely to happen?


Thanks,

Lian

[wizopeva]

I was just wondering whether later in the process there comes a point, at least for some schools, where in order to progress to the next stage you actually have to make a decision, explicit or not, as to "what" the target is.


I don't know of any methods that require you to do that unless it's in the summary at the end.  

The problem is - I can continue to collect information by asking non-specific questions (like "what kind of emotion do you feel?", or "move ten meters above the target" - but at some point in order to probe further I have to decide whether the square dark hard object with openings on the side is a building or a phone jack -


Well you can just prob around a sketch with your pen and write down whatever comes to you, rough, smooth, hard, hollow, sharp, metal, soft, etc without having any clue what it might be.  Now if you CAN accurately guess what exactly it is, well then fine.  But if you guesses are often really far off the mark, then they may hinder instead of help you and you may be better of describing and leaving a bit more of the analysis to the analyst.   For myself, I will write down any guesses, but I try not to get too attached to them.  





because if I try to "enter" it, how I interpret what I see from this point on, the scale and significance of things, will be completely dependent on what I've decided up to this moment.


Well one you have feel that a structure, be it a phone jack or a building or unknown, has an innner cavity area of hollowness to it, you can command yourself to enter inside, describe, touch inside etc, still all without knowing what it is.  EVen a tiny space is not safe from the mind of the viewer.  You can go microscopic and still look, touch, etc and it will still work.  Size is in no way an obstacle.  
 

Is this occasional inability to converge on the likely overall NATURE of the target something that gets ironed out with many years of experience, or do  even the most advanced viewers get caught "taking the wrong turn" - and if so, at what point in the session is that most likely to happen?


Even the best occasionally have bad sessions. I don't think anyone is always entirely perfect.  Heck, even top mathematicians occasionally do incorrect additions and subtractions.  If you can get it right a lot of the time, then you are doing well.  Even on bad days, we are still more accurate than the economic and weather forcasters, LOL!
-E

[Tunde]

Bill_Ray says :

The second is that as a viewer you do not make deceisions, you just report data.  You just fearlessly follow where that leads you.  Fearlessly being the key word here.  Fear of being wrong (looking foolish) makes us (myself included) hedge our bets.

Hi Bill,
Very good advice. Its similar to what i just posted
under another topic. Basically just taking the attitude
that you dont give a hoot about what you do or expect
but i like your term better...FEARLESS. Perfect  

[Scott]

Lian,

I have the same sort of experience where I get lots of elements that can be found in a target photo, but I usually have little or no idea of what the target is.  I use a meditative ERV type methodology.

Going by Remote Viewing Secrets, Joe M. describes the viewer getting better with experience at integrating the data.  My limited experience seems to corroborate this although I don't know why it is.  I do seem to be able to recognize some mental processes as just noise now and return to quieting my mind.

I find that only a very small percentage of the time will I get sessions that are photo like in their accuracy.  It doesn't seem that I'm consciously doing anything when those happen.  I'm just getting a series of impressions and one or more of them will be like looking at the photo in part or whole.  But there's been no conscious interference.

Joe M. once told me in an email that the quick flashes are more likely to be accurate whereas the little motion pictures are more "like" something.  I've found this to be very true.

Scott

[PJ]

If only we had RV as a full time paid job like the former project guys did, this experience curve would sure happen a lot faster. ;-)

PJ