Hypnosis and PSI - Mario Varvoglis, Ph.D.

RV Protocol

GO VIEW! @TKR's dojo

Project Home Page

RV webForum (here!)

Email: @Yahoo|@Google

Help make it possible for everyone!

TKR is Funded by:
PJ of Dojo Psi

Simple Session

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

P.I.A.

Greg K's ARV Trials

RV Roast (alt)

RV Library

[Tunde]

Welcome back PJ 


T

[Tunde]

http://theheavystuff.com/?cat=122

first, let’s look at the `subjective mutual reality’ experienced under Tart’s Mutual Hypnosis sessions. Indeed, much of the material about to be quoted comes from Tart’s 589 page book `Altered States of Consciousness’ - this material is found over pages 297-315 and featured a review of two individuals who on three occasions entered what seems to be a `real’ reality. You decide.

The Heavy Stuff will not go into the method used, but, suffice it to say that each participant was hypnotising the other and `taking them deeper’ often `taking them with them deeper’ and often `ending up in a subjective reality of mutual consensus’. Meaning - they `saw’ the same phenomena and described the `location’ (afterwards, in post hypno session) as having the same `events’ which included full interaction with each other in this separate reality. These mutual realities included when they were asked to `take the other one into a dream’ - and - when they simply were taking each other deeper in the hypnotic state (without being told any dream cue).

Finally got my book several days ago and I read the section dealing with Mutual Hypnosis and the shared reality
the subjects appeared to have experienced while hypnotized. Veeeeerrryy interesting stuff and has had me rethinking alot
of things such as the nature of reality and how humans are intricately connected in ways we may never be prepared to accept.
Our 'connection' with each other is more than just telepathic if the results of these experiments are to be believed.

I will try and write up something later on.

Tunde

[Sandra H.]

Very interesting post, with very interesting views expressed here.

Personally I do not believe things are as simple as saying;"A group of experienced scientist have concluded it doesn't work or my experience and other scientist indicate it does work."

The problem here is, in my opinion, that the definition of 'IT' being 'Hypnosis' already has many variables and as stated earlier; the workings of hypnosis itself still are still not fully understood.
Some people may be susceptible to hypnosis, others may not, some may 'allow' self-hypnosis and 'resist' hypnosis by others, then there is type of hypnosis and the technique, intent and process used... Does hypnosis for giving up smoking enhance RV results? Did they use hypnosis only to let the person relax or did they suggest they are 'psychic'? How was this suggested? By the same structure as an Extended Remote Viewing Session with a Monitor or otherwise? And how do we compare all of these different styles to each other?

(Hypnosis + Remote Viewing = Above chance results) or (Hypnosis + Remote Viewing = Below chance results) or (Hypnosis + Remote Viewing = Chance results)

We first have to determine what is Hypnosis, what variables are there and which of those variables was used to measure the result. We would have to do the same with Remote Viewing...(which has already been standardized for as far it seemed possible in order to make it more measurable.) It remains a subjective field, which makes it incredibly hard to objectify.

So perhaps we should ask what do Meditation Techniques, Hypnosis Techniques and Brain synchronization techniques, sensory deprivation techniques have in common? And does that particular single property enhance Remote Viewing Accuracy?

Then you can say:"Whatever that single property is; if a person attains that single property, by whatever means suits them, it will enhance their Remote Viewing." (there may well be various ways of attaining the same property, that may suit one person better than the other.)

So the 'Holy Grail' of Remote Viewing enhancement may not be found in complicating things even more, but rather in simplifying things by finding common denominators.

I agree with Daz, I do believe in Scientific Research (with perhaps some objections there with regards to the influences behind it), however I would not dismiss the value of anecdotal material either. The anecdotal material may hold interesting clues as to what it is we should be looking for.

Since none of us have solved the mystery yet, I am more than happy to explore every possible road with an open mind. 

Thank you for posting this Tunde...very 'refreshing'. 

[PJ]

I don't think hypnosis can actually be defined, since it's a "spectrum" condition.

So, the scientists can say they tried 'deep hypnosis' in comparison and it wasn't really too helpful in-session, but on the other hand we see that some of the better viewers, even working in protocol, often worked altered state intentionally.

I do tend to think that JM is likely right about the idea that everything we think can "make RV better" is an inverse way of creating something we can think of as making RV worse. That even though there are of course things that work better/worse for people as outer or inner process, still, if one pinpoints that, it's like an instant limiting parameter.

Of course, I guess that just goes back to the fact that in the end it's a big psychological/paradigm sitch for the viewer, bottom line. Believe one can or can't, either way, they're right.

PJ

[Glenda]

Hypnosis is fascinating.  I once saw, decades ago, an oral surgery take place, wisdom teeth removal.  The doc used no pain killers on this young, healthy female, and just used hypnosis.  The surgery went fine.  He had done it several times before this time.  He told me that he had trained somewhere in Texas.  My mom told me that in a large place, a show or something, that some hotshot person would use hypnosis for his show and get people to do silly things.  He had her stand up, and he could not get her under.  I was not really surprised.  She was very strict in ways, nice, but strict.  It is probably possible, but the subject has to be willing or open.   At my church, very Baptist, the assistant preacher told us once that he could get all of us to bark like dogs.  It is a very large church, and he was just talking about people in general and about people in general.  I do not think that went over very good.  Never brought it up again.   

Username:
Password: