pjrv : Messages : 319-322 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/319?)

 21:20:04

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#319 
	From: "Mary Ashley" 
Date: Thu Aug 1, 2002 7:43 am
Subject: Re: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	maryladyoflight

  	  	

Hi PJ,

> The trouble with all the other strategies was
> that the results dropped off over time

I think the intention and attention of the viewer is root cause. After a
100 plus targets, who can hold their attention in such an anticipatory
excitement of the sheer fascination of the whole thing. It works when it's
new, because it's new.. imho, of course. LOL.

Can I lurk for 59 days now PJ. ;-)

Be.. well.

Mary Ashley

-------------------
Moderator's Note: LOL.  OK, sure, lurk. ;-)  I think learning to be interested
in RV practice is hard but critical.  Many people, if they do targets from a
pool, don't have the "interest impetus" of someone else working with them, and
that alone can demolish their results.  I guess it's like learning to be
interested even in doing the dishes, mowing patterns in the lawn, etc. -- PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#322 
	From: "Jerry Pople" 
Date: Thu Aug 1, 2002 7:42 am
Subject: Re: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	popes53

  	  	

>Prudence wrote:
> There are a lot of potential clients out there.
> But virtually none of
> them have been approached by RVers. You gotta
> have balls of
> steel to go out and rustle up the work.  Too
> many RVers are
> waiting around for people to call them. It just
> doesn't work that
> way. It's too new, too esoteric a practice, too
> weird for the normal
> client. You have to bring the answers to them.

It's that way with everything. I don't know a business that doesn't require
a lot of hard work attracting clients. All this garbage about "building a
better mousetrap and the world beating a path to your door" is nonsesnse. It
takes rock hard cajones for most businesses. If they don't know about you,
then they don't know about, or have never heard of, your company or your
technology. That's why this last stock crash was so pervasive: New companies
were focusing on other things besides setting a sound foundation through
customer acquisition. If you do anything else your going to lose.

Gotta be rough to walk into the door and tell corporate America: "Hi, my
name's Jerry. I represent Joe Dokes Remote Viewing. Can I have 15 minutes of
your time?"

Jerry

pjrv : Messages : 296-650 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/296?)

 22:14:03

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#296 
	From: "largeruniverse" 
Date: Tue Jul 30, 2002 9:44 pm
Subject: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	largeruniverse

  	  	

Hi!

So I told y'all I had ARV reservations, and then my crazy life got in
the way and I was too busy at business to post my diatribe.

Here you go:

I have tried ARV like many other people in remote viewing. I've
had some success with it, but not enough success. I've tried all
the variations - where you self-judge your sessions, where
someone else judges your sessions and you only receive the
correct feedback, etc. Many many sessions over a couple of
years.

And I had about as success as people are reporting here. No
more, no less. Some great 'hits' and some head-scratching
misses where you just knew you viewed something else. And I
am of the philosophy that every session is perfect (though not all
are useful), and I even thought my sessions were OFF.

So it got me to thinking about ARV philosophically. And if you
look at the basis of it, the theory is that you don't trust that your
mind can give you the answer you desire, so you sort of trick it
into giving you a Yes or a No.

And that got me to thinking about whether or not this is
subconsciously defeating.

No, my problems with ARV have nothing at all to do with the
money end of it. After all, I am doing remote viewing for clients,
and have no qualms with that aspect of it.

My problem with it is that I suspect it sends a confliciting
message to your undermind, your subconscious. That message
being that you don't think it's good enough to give you the real
answer, so it has to give you a fake answer.

If you take all of your ARV results, and look through the especially
putrid ones, my guess (and I say this because this is the pattern
I started noticing) is that your mind is trying to give you the
actual
answer you desire, and that is the data's reflection, not in the
'fake' target you assign to that answer.

Does this make sense? This is my problem with ARV and why I
won't do it anymore. I do look at all these kinds of questions, but
using creative direct tasking.

Pru

Reply | Forward
	
#297 
	From: "k9caninek9" 
Date: Tue Jul 30, 2002 10:21 pm
Subject: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	k9caninek9

  	  	

Yeah, I'd sure like to know what the deal is with ARV.
Theoretically, it should be easier than it is.  So it seems to me
that there must be something missing from the theory!  I have
wondered if maybe it is a plethora of small things that all come into
play.  You may get rid of one issue, but you will not see any
appreciable improvement if there are still 10 other issues that
haven't been solved.

It's interesting that a direct viewing might be more accurate.  I can
see that if one had a set up in which viewers were doing dozens of
targets all totally blind, then if you threw in an occasional simple
answer type of target, they would be too clueless to have
preconcieved notions about it.  But if someone were doing only ARV
then the viewer would know about it and be full of preconceptions
that many answers would have up or down aspects for instance to
them.  That could more easily lead to aol and a compromise of the
blind condition.  It might also bore the heck out of the viewer.
-E

Reply | Forward
	
#305 
	From: "scottrver" 
Date: Wed Jul 31, 2002 1:12 am
Subject: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	scottrver

  	  	

Hi Pru,

> If you take all of your ARV results, and look through the especially
> putrid ones, my guess (and I say this because this is the pattern
> I started noticing) is that your mind is trying to give you the
> actual
> answer you desire, and that is the data's reflection, not in the
> 'fake' target you assign to that answer.

This might be viewer specific. There are times where ARV misses are
perfect hits on the wrong target.

> Does this make sense? This is my problem with ARV and why I
> won't do it anymore. I do look at all these kinds of questions, but
> using creative direct tasking.

So I'm curious, what kind of direct tasking would you do to see if the
stock market will go up or down next week?  Or to get a number?

Scott

Reply | Forward
	
#307 
	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Wed Jul 31, 2002 6:06 pm
Subject: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	docsavagebill

  	  	

Hi Pru,

It does make sense all though perhaps is not the whole
reason. One would have to know how well one predicts
the future with straight RV or some version first. I
would be elated if someone could provide some real
input on that.  However, you are not alone in that
view. Greg K....  who has tried many many different
versions of ARV now does something very much like what
you say. If he wants to know if the stock market is
up.. he just tasks that question and looks for a
metaphore resembling either up or down or some other
direction.

Best Wishes,

Bill

Reply | Forward
	
#309 
	From: Richard Krankoski 
Date: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	Rich_crv

  	  	

> largeruniverse wrote:
> If you take all of your ARV results, and look through the especially
> putrid ones, my guess (and I say this because this is the pattern
> I started noticing) is that your mind is trying to give you the
> actual
> answer you desire, and that is the data's reflection, not in the
> 'fake' target you assign to that answer.
> Does this make sense? This is my problem with ARV and why I
> won't do it anymore. I do look at all these kinds of questions, but
> using creative direct tasking.

Interesting theory......  so instead of simplifying the problem to a basic
Y/N it instead opens the door even wider to all sorts of  inputs because there
is no "signal line" resulting in displacements, or consistently opposite
answers, etc, etc.

But isn't ARV really a form of "what's in the box?"   Marty's targets do not
task the viewer to specifically "go to" the target site and I don't think any
other examples I have seen do anything other than "describe the feedback" be it
a photo or a design sketch or a physical object in a box.

Could this be a "lack of faith " issue or just a personal weakness like a top
ten batter having trouble with outside pitches?

Meantime, considering the major use of ARV to predict investment decisions,
have you found an alternative?

Which leads to a general question for all..........   from what you know and
have experienced, what would you tell someone who wanted to learn RV to make a
living? Contract, operational work? ARV investment/ gambling?  Teaching for a
fee?

Rich

-------------------------
Moderator's Note: It's odd, there must be something missing.  McMoneagle tells
me that ARV done properly -- using basic gestalt targets -- is really no more
difficult or inaccurate/% than regular RV (for the same viewers).  So something
must be up that it seems so much more difficult to all of us?  -- PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#310 
	From: "scottrver" 
Date: Thu Aug 1, 2002 12:24 am
Subject: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	scottrver

  	  	

Hi PJ,

> ARV done properly -- using basic gestalt targets -- is really
> no more difficult or inaccurate/% than regular RV (for the
> same viewers).  So something must be up that it seems so much
> more difficult to all of us?

I haven't found it more difficult or inaccurate than regular RV thus
far.  I have come across displacement however, which I think will only
be understood better through methodical experimentation with
significant numbers of trials.

Scott

Reply | Forward
	
#311 
	From: "Jason S. Shapiro" 
Date: Thu Aug 1, 2002 12:53 am
Subject: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	fetik3

  	  	

> ARV done properly -- using basic gestalt
> targets -- is really no more difficult or inaccurate/% than regular RV
> (for the same viewers).  So something must be up that it seems so much
> more difficult to all of us?

It seems to me that the difficulty is due to one's intent.  I
think in general, viewers put a lot of emotional
investment into the idea of "matching" a target.  In other
words, the viewer is very hopeful that during the judging
of their work, one of the targets will match what they
have drawn; and this adds ambiguity to the intent of the
session.

During the first phase of a recent ARV project I worked
on (36 sessions), this is exactly what I ran into.  My
girlfriend was judging my sessions, and I had an
emotional/egotistical motivation to have the target
match SOMETHING... ANYTHING!! ;)  Otherwise I'd
have to deal with the embarrassment of having her say
"umm.. I don't think you did very well, it doesn't seem to
match either of the pictures" :)  So, for the first 12
sessions, I ended up with 5 correct associations;
basically what you would expect by chance...

My work improved considerably once I didn't schedule a
pre-determined time to have the sessions judged, and
really didn't put any emotional investment into the
judging at all.  All that I concentrated on was the idea of
"picture that I will be viewing  at
10:00am, July 31st, 2002."  I let go of the idea that the
judging was important - which was easy to do after the
first 12 sessions... after all, the embarrassment was
over... if I was to do any worse, it would be a case of
psi-missing, and that, statistically speaking, would be an
improvement :)   I figured if the picture didn't match
either picture, I'd just do another session; no big deal.
And at that point the results were more accurate: 20 out
of 24 associations were correct.

My first ARV experiment, had a pretty surprising change
of events...  My association was based on the lowest
number of a lottery drawing.  When I did the sessions
and judged them (myself), I came up with a number that
was so high, it was *very* unlikely to be the lowest
number.  So, being a bit discouraged, I put the pictures
back in their envelopes and forgot about it for a week or
so...  The night before the drawing, I wanted to show my
girlfriend the sessions.  We went through the work, and
found that when I had put the pictures away the
previous week, I had mixed up the associations (i.e. the
associations were written on the envelope, and so
picture 'a' which originally represented 'x', now
represented 'y'.  So now, instead of producing a high
number, I produced the association: "4 - 7"  (the
possibilities were 1 - 49), and the "lowest number" the
next day was in fact "4". :)

- Jason

Reply | Forward
	
#313 
	From: "Palyne Gaenir" 
Date: Thu Aug 1, 2002 1:57 am
Subject: ARV, Symbols, & matching 'anything' 	dennanm

  	  	

Hmmmn. I get the feeling that doing a dominant% regular RV, mixed with
ARV, but the viewer not knowing which was which -- all have feedback posted
on a given date/time -- might gradually work through some of the psyche
issues that might relate to expectations about the future, belief systems
about predictions etc.  Though, I still think that viewers really making inquiry
into their own psyches about belief systems that may not be apparent to their
surface-conscious is probably useful.

Due to my archetype work, I can see the logic of saying, just describe the
market price index 'as compared to' X on a given date -- as I am sure that my
inner creativity would find adequate symbolism to explain it clearly.   I feel
that if over time I worked out a deliberate symbolism of numbers and letters, I
could probably work it into RV.

A lot of study the last few decades repeats the finding that much of the mind
works beautifully in symbols -- even for linear data like numbers/letters, IF
one
is able to find symbolic representation for those -- it seems the symbolic IS
the language of the psyche.

I sometimes get linears mixed up -- I mean in my regular non-RV life -- for
example, I once had a very profound dream that mixed 8 and 2 and red, which
somehow also got mixed with the letter R (in capital form only), and now
R=8=Red somehow with an 'overtone' of 2.  Don't ask me to explain it, I can't.
:-)

> Jason wrote:
> the viewer is very hopeful that during the judging
> of their work, one of the targets will match what they
> have drawn; and this adds ambiguity to the intent of the
> session.
and
> my girlfriend was judging my sessions, and I had an
> emotional/egotistical motivation to have the target
> match SOMETHING...

LOL!  I had this experience with regular RV many years ago. I asked my
husband to go walk around the local town, come up with a number of specific
targets, write each one on paper and put in a security envelope.  I had him
mix the envelopes up, then choose two and put each in a USPS priority mail
box, and put them on top of the cabinets in my study. When I got time, I'd sit
down, point at a box at random, and say, The target is THAT one.

Well, I would finish my session, open the envelope, and then go TALK to him
about the session... prior to visiting feedback which I might not get to right
away.  Big mistake!

Somewhat humorously, he was highly passive aggressive, so even outside of
RV, he would find a way to agree with anything I said (P/A people will bury
you later but agree up front :-)).  So he would agree that the sessions were
accurate and on target and so on.... to a much greater degree than they often
were.  (Worse, at the time for some reason I was getting extensive
"metaphysical" data but not tons of physical data, so they may not have been
inaccurate but they weren't entirely helpful. :-))

As one example, several targets in, I did a session when he was at the store
one day.  I felt sure, when I was through, that the target was at the city
library, that it was in the 'entrance' foyer of it, and that it was a 'flyers
rack',
and I got extensive data on this tall, circular, revolving rack with a central
threaded spindle and so on.  I was really happy about the session as I had a
lot more physical data than usual.

I opened the envelope and the feedback was, the Greenwood City Library,
Entrance Area, magazine rack.  I was so happy.

When he came home, I talked to him about it and he was really impressed
with the session....

... and so was I, until 2 days later when I was able to bundle up the baby and
get out to check my physical feedback.

The rack was for full-size magazines, and it was a long flat one that spanned
much of the left wall of that little foyer area.  There was not a tall
cylindrical,
rotating 'flyers' (smaller openings) rack anywhere in that room.

I was just crushed.  95% of my data was all about that damned flyers rack!

Now, there are a few possibilities, I figure --

1.  Being new, I described my feedback, which was generic, so I 'interpreted'
it and essentially gave myself feedback, and hence described what was in my
head later, instead of the target.

2.  My husband's feedback had the same effect.

3.  I just screwed up in AOL and re-interpreted the data.  To this day though, I
feel stubborn about that not being so despite the facts. :-)

4.  The target had no time spec.  I might have described something in the
middle of the library foyer prior to or after the time I got feedback.

Either way, it was terribly demoralizing to me at the time.

(I know, there was still good data, but -- well, I was the kid that read the
entire
textbook in the first two days of class, read science fiction the rest of the
term, and then got pissed if I got only 98-99% on tests.  It's a self-critical
thing obviously.)

PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#344 
	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Fri Aug 2, 2002 10:11 pm
Subject: Re: ARV, Symbols, & matching 'anything' 	docsavagebill

  	  	

Hi PJ,

Those are all interesting things to try. I'll have to
give them a try and perhaps others will also and we
can get back to you.

Best Regards,

Bill

--- Palyne Gaenir  wrote:
> Hmmmn. I get the feeling that doing a dominant%
> regular RV, mixed with
> ARV, but the viewer not knowing which was which --
[snip]
> I feel
> that if over time I worked out a deliberate
> symbolism of numbers and letters, I
> could probably work it into RV.

Reply | Forward
	
#312 
	From: "largeruniverse" 
Date: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:48 pm
Subject: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	largeruniverse

  	  	

> what would you tell someone who wanted to learn
> RV to make a living? Contract, operational work?
> ARV  investment/ gambling?  Teaching for a fee?

I do use direct tasking on things like the stock market. Such as
"The closing figure of the NASDAQ index on 'date x' relative to the
position of the market today." or whatever. Viewers will describe
easily whether it's up or down.

There are creative taskings for determing more exact details in a
direct manner, too. You just have to think about what you want
the viewer to figure out and then work out the wording.

I think that operational work is the way to go. I'm not currently
involved with ARV at all, and I'm not charging much (if anything)
for my training. But we are doing pretty well with client work.

There are so many applications, it would take me years to think
of all of them. Missing items, which project in R and D is more
viable, what is the best material for this hardware issue, who is
embezzling the money, is this a good potential hire for us, blah
blah blah. Give me an industry and I'll give you 100 apps.

  There are a lot of potential clients out there. But virtually none of
them have been approached by RVers. You gotta have balls of
steel to go out and rustle up the work.  Too many RVers are
waiting around for people to call them. It just doens't work that
way. It's too new, too esoteric a practice, too weird for the normal
client. You have to bring the answers to them.

Pru

Reply | Forward
	
#327 
	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Thu Aug 1, 2002 12:29 pm
Subject: Re: Re:Pru raises provacative questions 	docsavagebill

  	  	

Hi Pru,

You are the only one doing practical RV appplications
( for pay) besides Joe McMoneagle  that's even hinted
publically they can make money. I suspect Lyn and Paul
also do but they never mention it.   However, I was
fortunate to see you do it in person on me as a target
( by a blind draw) at Lyns CRV class so I have no
doubts that you can do what you say and get alot of
personal information for corporations.  And much of it
is "In the future" type RVing. So this brings up some
interesting issues.  1) Making money with RV is not
difficult or agaist any Karmic laws.  Provided you are
tremendously creative, talented,  and bold as a .  2)
ARV may not be the best way to view the  the future as
nifty as it seems. perhaps all these causality loops
do get filled with demons... (G). 3) Are the other
major talented people with RV  buisnesses  just shy
about discussing their finacial success....or
deliberately sandbagging.as part of a CIA coverup.. (
only partly in jest here). And I'm not meaning anyone
in particular  especially not YOU LYN!

Best Regards,

Bill

--------------------
Moderator's Note: I seriously doubt very many people
beyond Joe and Pru ARE making money with RV beyond
training in it.  Partly because it's more work to get
the work than do it and most of them have other jobs
already. My $.02 only of course. -- PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#314 
	From: "k9caninek9" 
Date: Thu Aug 1, 2002 2:00 am
Subject: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	k9caninek9

  	  	

Actually Bill,

If I remember correctly, Greg K was experimenting with such an
approach and it had shown strong initial results.  However, the
results were similar to beginning results in other strategies he had
tried in the past.  The trouble with all the other strategies was
that the results dropped off over time so that even though they were
still above chance, it wasn't by much.  Last I heard, it was yet to
be determined if the new strategy would experience drop off as well.
Maybe someone has been in touch with Greg K. more recently and knows
how it has been going?
-E

-------------------
Moderator's Note: Now that's interesting.  You know that this is the same
tendency for individual viewer curves as well.  It makes me wonder if what is
happening on these ARV trials is that the entire project is "under the intent"
of whomever is the official "leader", and if the same "fall-off effect" that
happens to viewers is in fact happening to the ARV leader(s) -- for the same
reasons (belief systems etc.) even though they are not the ones viewing.  Maybe
if the ARV leader was a person who'd done extensive viewing for many years, and
worked through such issues, something might be different?  Just wondering.  Who
knows. -- PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#316 
	From: Timelord2029...
Date: Thu Aug 1, 2002 1:07 am
Subject: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	psitrooper24

  	  	

> pj wrote: ARV done properly -- using basic gestalt
> targets -- is really no more difficult or inaccurate/%
> than regular RV (for the same viewers).  So something
> must be up that it seems so much more difficult to all
> of us?

Hi PJ, all

Well those that do know
or vouch for arv's success unfortunately are not
divulging any 'advanced'info on the matter and
i know these people into serious ARV research
have spent ALOT of time and money on this.
I guess when they finish their research
the knowlege and answers will be available
..but at a price.
I think we will just have to wait and see.

Peace,
Tunde

------------------
Moderator's Note: Maybe, but I don't think so.  In my experience, when
researched stuff isn't jibing with modern layman's stuff, it is almost always in
some way related to the specifics of the protocol.  And in my experience, it is
usually that the original research was quite SIMPLE and clean, and that as
layman we tend to assume anything difficult or amazing must be complex, plus
we've got a methods background most of us, so we tend to add all kinds of extra
junk -- or, we really muck up protocol with feedback, discussions with tasker,
targets too complex for the skill of viewer or analyst, and so on. -- PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#640 
	From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m
Date: Fri Sep 6, 2002 9:07 pm
Subject: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	maliolana

  	  	

Aloha PJ,

> McMoneagle tells me that ARV done properly -- using basic gestalt
> targets -- is really no more difficult or inaccurate/% than regular
> RV (for the same viewers).

It is much more personal for me...probably because I am also learning to
judge my own 'views'...and that is not always easy...Even some of those
times when it does seems easy to make a choice...It can end up off
target...wrong!

So one is practicing intellectual discrimination (analysis) and psi...

They say it is best to have another judge you...but i feel I am learning
so much from judging myself...I am not doing any better...just learning
more stuff ...primarily about myself......maybe it is the pressure of
choosing... sort of like...second guessing oneself...

I have a much easier time with rewarding my inner selves for all psi
work...but forgiving my beta.analytical self for bad judgement is a
bitch!...Especially after feedback when I go over it again and see
where I screwed up in the judging...It seems so simple to choose...once
you know the answer...hahah

Love & Light & Laughter
Mali'o...aka...Dawna

------------------------
Moderator's note: I still think that seeing the decoys is a problem.  But, what
the hell do I know.  I mean, this theory that seeing the decoys in feedback
messes you up -- by providing you retrocausal info about the decoys as if to
distract or bleed-through -- by that theory, then I should never have a session
that didn't match the target, because seeing my feedback ought to have
retrocausally given me the target info. !  So clearly there is some undefined
swampland in the middle of where "theory" and "practice" meet. :-) -- PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#641 
	From: "Jason S. Shapiro" 
Date: Sat Sep 7, 2002 11:29 am
Subject: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	fetik3

  	  	

On 6 Sep 2002 at 16:07, PJ wrote

> I mean, this theory that seeing the
> decoys in feedback messes you up
...
> by that theory,
> then I should never have a session that didn't match the target,
> because seeing my feedback ought to have retrocausally given me the
> target info. !

I had the same thought!  However, it seems that the
"bleed-through" doesn't occurr all of the time; only in
certain cases.  Some of the times, we directly hit the
right target, other times we miss, and of course, a third
category, is where we hit the wrong target or have a
combination of all the feedback photos,  Of this third
category, I think part of those cases can be attributed to
matches by chance, and another part to actual bleed-
through.  So it is my theory that real bleed-through
doesn't happen as often as we think; but that it does
happen in  more types of situations than we think...
such as non-arv sessions (i.e. you had a successful
match *because* you saw the feedback, and that bleed-
through influenced your work).

Of course, this is just theory :)

-Jason

Reply | Forward
	
#642 
	From: "scottrver" 
Date: Sat Sep 7, 2002 12:39 pm
Subject: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	scottrver

  	  	

My own experience is that I have a MUCH higher level of displacement
when I judge my own targets, which is why I don't do it.  I have no
idea why that is, but I don't recommend it.

Scott

> > McMoneagle tells me that ARV done properly -- using basic gestalt
> > targets -- is really no more difficult or inaccurate/% than regular
> > RV (for the same viewers).

> It is much more personal for me...probably because I am also learning to
> judge my own 'views'...and that is not always easy...Even some of those
> times when it does seems easy to make a choice...It can end up off
> target...wrong!
> So one is practicing intellectual discrimination (analysis) and psi...

Reply | Forward
	
#650 
	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Mon Sep 9, 2002 11:09 am
Subject: Re: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	docsavagebill

  	  	

Hi Scott,

I have had this experience also. But I must say that
even when I was judging others ARV sessons.(as a third
party). I saw some rather regular and totally amazing
displacement occur..it wasn't an accident or bad
grading..it was zeroing in on the wrong targets. I
note that the Targ group that was initially
suffecssful in ARVing silver futures subsequently
couldn't reproduce it despite access to the best
viewers and monitors. So in conclusion as much as I
respect Joe, I'm waiting to see exactly how he does it
and a chart of results.

Best Regards,

Bill

> --- scottrver  wrote:
> My own experience is that I have a MUCH higher level
> of displacement
> when I judge my own targets, which is why I don't do
> it.  I have no
> idea why that is, but I don't recommend it.
> Scott

Reply | Forward
	
#644 
	From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m
Date: Sat Sep 7, 2002 7:36 pm
Subject: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	maliolana

  	  	

Aloha PJ,

I seem to go through long periods lately...of negative psi (really
wrong!...completely off target...but almost always in
retrospect...through feedback... I can see where my judgement was the
basic culprit...during the judging...not the info infusion...and then
...I do especially  well for a while...

I know I cannot trust my gut instincts with psi...at least during
deliberate psi...and this is something I have prided myself on for many a
year...good judgements/critical thinking skills...in beta...but as far as
my analytic mind/instincts...for 'viewing' goes...they are  useless...but
for judging...ah...
that is different...expertise!...

Well...that turns out to not be true for moi!...at least not with
self...so far...

Getting some on target info is not my problem...My problem seems to be
getting info from both choices...especially the acpects... they have in
common... even though I always remind myself Target Feedback' only...I
wonder if my 'mind' defines that as the two photo's/choices...are both
feedback... unto themselves...regardles of my instructions...

When some emotion or other is attached to a particular choice...that is
when...I think...I screw up the most...just minor emotional responses
...say...to beauty for example...color...feel...My preferences kick in
sometimes in judging...and throws me off...most of the time...Enough so
that I cannot trust this part of me when viewing or judging...

Seems like the prime goal would be to use both powers
simulataeously...Mind/body...psi/analysis...at will...

Like Marty warns..."make sure you are using your intellect...while
judging"... Great adice...yet...So much easier said ...than done ...when
judging 'self'...But goddess knows I try...

I feel like I am always a recipient of 'info''' during a session...but
the control of this...catching it...is still the carrot...)...and then
the judging...ummm

Sometimes I think there is a little trickster in there...like on
gotpsi...that likes to make little jokes by misdirecting me......in
slightly humorous yet cruel fashion!...So I ask that the rest of the
many me's...control that one when I first begin to cool
down......Works usually...OK...most of the time... sometimes...

But I am persistant if nothing else...

Love & Light & Laughter
Mali'o...aka...Dawna

Reply | Forward
	
#328 
	From: "chacha620957" 
Date: Thu Aug 1, 2002 12:30 pm
Subject: Re: My wandering ARV thoughts... 	chacha620957

  	  	

Hi Pru

I have tried the ARV and really seem to like it...although I have not
done much but I really understand it alot more than some of the other
methods. I have had a few good hits and a few misses. But so far more
hits than misss. But, just starting your classes and will see how I
do there. So then I will have another method of RV to compare it to.

CHAR:-)

------------------
Moderator's Note: this was nearly a zen koan! ;-)  ARV is not a method, it is a
protocol, fyi.  By which I mean, Pru is teaching a method; you could use her
method to do your ARV.  ARV is not like CRV or ERV (those are methods too).  I
know - all the acronyms are confusing!  ARV just means the tasking/ feedback may
be different (and is _precog_). Perhaps you have found a brief description of
'how to' get psi data on an ARV site?  If so, just fyi, that isn't "what" ARV
"is".  That's just an idea on relaxing enough and writing down data. You could
use any psi method in the world - including Silva mind control, or the "Image
Streaming" referred to in The Einstein Factor book -- to acquire some kind of
info about about a target. Regards - PJ