pjrv : Messages : 1152-1280 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1152?)

 23:01:31

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

#1152
 	From: "PJ Gaenir" 
Date: Thu Nov 7, 2002 5:27 pm
Subject: Solar Wind and Greg's ARV 	dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

Hi Greg,

Well just as I thought I had read every of the zillion pages on your
website, I see I must have been at a different website (?!) because
remote-viewing.com had lots stuff I hadn't seen before.  Cool pics!
Not as much fun as you on your nifty bike though. :-)

On one of your solar wind papers,
http://www.remote-viewing.com/ARVupdateOct99.html
Your first graph charts ARV effect size against SW speed.

You didn't mention it anywhere but I just wondered, did you not find
it interesting that the effect seemed to pick UP around a certain
high speed?

Too bad there weren't more days with the real high speeds -- well
there were just recently I guess... -- I'm curious as to whether a
larger span to measure might actually show it picking up again.  If
Spottiswoode had measured only a certain portion of LST for example
it might have ended up looking like 'the later the LST the worse
results' when of course that wasn't the case.  Maybe SWS will end up
having merely a certain 'range' that is very poor vs. just 'the
higher the number, the worse the effect'.

I wonder if SWS has any different effect size response depending on
where one is on the planet.  Well maybe that relates to what you
suggested about LST maybe being a 'secondary' issue (I recall James
saying that also).

What I can't figure out is if these things do have effect, why does
RV testing inside faraday cages and so forth seem to have no effect?
Hmmmmn.

PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#1159
 	From: "Scott Ellis" 
Date: Thu Nov 7, 2002 6:51 pm
Subject: Re: Solar Wind and Greg's ARV 	scottrver
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi PJ,

> If Spottiswoode had measured only a certain portion of LST for example
> it might have ended up looking like 'the later the LST the worse
> results' when of course that wasn't the case.  Maybe SWS will end up
> having merely a certain 'range' that is very poor vs. just 'the
> higher the number, the worse the effect'.

I'm not sure if I get what you're talking about.  Spottiswoode's paper
on GMF (which is a product of SWS) shows that there are LST times
where it is positively correlated with effect size and only around
13:00 (if I remember correctly) where it is negatively correlated.
Remember too, that the actual magnetic field changes are minute.

> What I can't figure out is if these things do have effect, why does
> RV testing inside faraday cages and so forth seem to have no effect?
> Hmmmmn.

Do you know something I don't?  This is an experiment I've been
considering doing and have discussed at some length with Tart and
Spottiswoode.  The only RV testing I'm aware of shows that RV can
occur inside Faraday cages.  Charles Tart's experiment on Faraday
shielding showed significantly positive psi results (forced choice)
for a grounded cage vs. total absence of psi for an electrically
floating cage.  His was a vastly improved replication of Puharich's
experiments in the 1950s with the same results.  To my knowledge there
have been no replications using RV, but I don't want to replicate it
with RV if someone else already has.

Scott

Reply | Forward
	
#1176
 	From: "Scott Ellis" 
Date: Fri Nov 8, 2002 1:26 pm
Subject: One mistake - Re: Solar Wind and Greg's ARV 	scottrver
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

In reviewing James's paper I made one mistake

> Spottiswoode's paper
> on GMF (which is a product of SWS) shows that there are LST times
> where it is positively correlated with effect size

WRONG - the amount of positive correlation does not appear that
significant.

> and only around
> 13:00 (if I remember correctly) where it is negatively correlated.
> Remember too, that the actual magnetic field changes are minute.

CORRECT.

Scott

Reply | Forward
	
#1166
 	From: "Greg Kolodziejzyk" 
Date: Thu Nov 7, 2002 9:46 pm
Subject: RE: Solar Wind and Greg's ARV 	gregkolodzie...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Heya PJ:

Good points re Solar Wind and the INCREASE in ES at around 600 km per
second. I have looked extensively for a confirmation of that effect aside
from *some* in subsequent ARV trials of my own. I even went as far as to
plot the correlation of thousands of retroPK trials from fourmilab. The
short answer is - ya - it looks like there 'might' be something there, but
the effect was so weak in the pk data that I wasn't able to say for certain
(statistically) - mostly because I had to take some liberties with regard to
estimating certain variables in the data (forget exactly what it was...).
But I do believe it is something real.

How it works is: Low solar wind speeds = high psi effect size and speeds
between 600 and 700 (I think - don't have my most recent data right here) =
high effect size. It's a tough one to gather enough data on because the days
with really high solar activity are are and becoming rarer with on 'this'
side of the big cycle (which is good because as the months and years pass,
we will get more and more LOW solar wind speed days).

As far as the faraday cage question goes - The ACTUAL solar wind or
Geomagnetic activity that is effected by solar wind CANNOT possibly have any
direct effect at all on remote viewing. The reason is that plenty of testing
in sheltered environments (caves, faraday cages, submarines) have failed to
result in an increase in effect. It's something else that we can't directly
measure that fluctuates along with solar activity. I believe solar wind, or
sun spots, or the AP index is merely a proxy for what's really the causal
factor - something mysterious!

I believe that Spottiswoode did some faraday cage testing and contrary to
what he thought he would find, he actually found NO effect when the subject
was completely sheltered and a high effect when the subject was being
bombarded with various EM frequencies.

Regards,
Greg K


~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group----------
Moderator's note: Thanks Greg. Scott I think that answers the questions you
posed me in another post. -- PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#1179
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Fri Nov 8, 2002 9:43 am
Subject: Re: Solar Wind and Greg's ARV 	greenmn900...
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

> Bill writes:
> If so the 13:30 effect of LST may be to
> DECREASE displacement rather than to
> decrease total RV sensitivity.

Bill,

I think you mean "rather than to increase total RV sensitivity".

This is a very interesting idea.  I hadn't thought of that one.  It could be,
especially if you're thinking along the lines of PJs theory, that displacement
is a lot bigger problem than I had previously considered it to be.  At the very
least, if true, it makes me feel better about missed targets.  I'd rather be a
guilty of displacement rather than just being flat out wrong!

I recently had a funny displacement problem.  I described something like an
enclosed large ship, on land, in a very cold environment, not in the U.S. - I
missed my target completely.  After looking at the feedback photo, I put it
away and picked up Joe's new book "The Stargate Chronicles".  I started
reading about where I had left off.  He was describing his RVing of the first
Soviet Typhoon-class sub!  I had Rved what I was about to read and missed the
target totally!

Best Regards,
Don

Reply | Forward
	
#1188
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Fri Nov 8, 2002 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: Guessing Card color 	docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi All,

Ever since I witnessed Rob Abbotts stunning success
with guessing card color (94% correct)..I've been
experimenting with  that every night. And using it as
a proxy to determine what causes my psi to
increase/decrease . It's nice to have instant
feedbackand many things become apparent.

1) I find that I have to find a way to fool my
concious mind or distract it away or it will give me
the wrong target most of the time..if I'm on the psi
line..and random targets if I'm not on the psi line.

2)Whatever trick I use.. hemisynch..different ways of
dowsing..or seeing the card in my mind..will only work
until my conciousness figures what I'm doing and gets
involved. Changing your methods or rotating them seems
to keep the concious mind confused and increases
success alot. I think inate success of a psychic is
how well they can keep a filter between there viewing
mind and there concious mind. Rob can do it
outstandingly well. So could Joe and Ingo in MO. But
others like me must resort to tricks. And in my
opinion the whole RV process is a huge trick to keep
the concious mind out of play.

My latest trick..hope this doesn't ruin it:

I imagine a mirror and I imagine holding the card to
the mirror so I can see it.. but that is just the
FIRST mirror which my concious mind can see also. As
soon as the image fades out from my concious mind....
at some random time I flash the card into another
imaginary mirror( the mirror of Truth)..on my right or
left and I keep changing. Doing that way.. I got a
good string on my last trial ( 17/24) . I think this
bears on displacement also. As soon as the
conciousness can penetrate into the viewing process it
acts very michieviously and it LEARNS how to penetrate
your method. So you have to keep changing or it will
get you..G

Best Regards,

Bill

Reply | Forward
	
#1194
 	From: "Darren Danks" 
Date: Sat Nov 9, 2002 2:03 am
Subject: RE: Guessing Card color 	daz_ufo
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi Bill

That's great, I'll have to try that. I found that when I started trying
to predict the card colour that when I first had a go I did really well
then subsequent tries reduced the success rate.  Do you think though
that the more you do the card colour predicting and keep up the success
rate using whatever distractions for the conscious mind that the
conscious mind will eventually accept the process and allow it to happen
without the distraction techniques?  Could this be a process the "pros"
have gone through?

I'll start spending 15-20 minutes each day on cards and document my
success rate and feelings etc and see if this is the case over a period
of time.  Every now and again I'll post my findings up and maybe some
sort of correlation may appear. Not sure what correlation yet but
something may happen :-)

Take care

Darren

-------------------------------
Moderator's note: You might bore yourself to new distractions.  That may happen.
LOL. But seriously, let us know how it goes. -- PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#1222
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Mon Nov 11, 2002 1:30 am
Subject: RE: Guessing Card color 	docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi Darren,

>....  Do
> you think though
> that the more you do the card colour predicting and
> keep up the success
> rate using whatever distractions for the conscious
> mind that the
> conscious mind will eventually accept the process
> and allow it to happen
> without the distraction techniques?

Hi Darren...actually my experience is the opposite so
far..the concious mind just interferes more and more.
Unless a break is taken. HOWEVER, I seem to be having
a longer run of  success than ever before with the
mirror trick because I just don't allow time for the
concious mind. I hope I don't have to change it..
Again..I have 4 imaginary mirrors. In my mind I hold
the card to mirror (1)( note I actually hold up the
card to my imaginary mirror with my eyes closed) and
usually I see the last card chosen as an imaginary
reflection.. so obviously just an after image.. but I
focus tightly on that image.. and when the after image
fades..WITHOUT ANITCIPATION. I flash the card  to
imaginary mirror two and then to either 3 or 4 ( I
make the decision between 3 or 4 without concious
thought at the last possible splt second after I
bounce off mirror (2)..   I take my REAL reading.from
either 3 or 4. This continues to work so far but I
have to do all the hand  movement in less than 0.5
Seconds including gettting the finally image from
mirror 3 or 4!..after that it frequently drifts to the
wrong one.

I think the Pro's like Rob Abbott and Ingo and Lyn and
Joe just have a better filter between concious and
subconcious mind.. I do find that binaural beat music
helps  me a better window with all this because it
seems to dull the concious mind.

Best Regards,

Bill

Reply | Forward
	
#1198
 	From: Karl Boyken 
Date: Sat Nov 9, 2002 11:20 am
Subject: Re: Guessing Card color 	kboyken
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

This guessing card color thread reminded me of a guy
I used to know, about 25 years ago, who could do this.
He'd have a person go through a deck, looking at each
card while he tried to sense its color.  He was
sensing the other person's perception of the card,
because when I ran the deck with him, at first he was
getting them all wrong.  He said it was because red
and black have a different feel for me than for most
other people.  I can't remember which was which now,
but he said one usually felt warm and soft, the other
hard and cool.  So we ran the deck again, and this
time he got almost all of them right.

--
Karl Boyken
mailto:kboyken...t
http://soli.inav.net/~kboyken

Reply | Forward
	
#1203
 	From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m
Date: Sat Nov 9, 2002 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: Guessing Card color 	maliolana
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Aloha Bill,

I feel a similar way about distracting my 'conscious' self or it will
displace
my retrieval process...What a know it all it is...It just wants to solve
any problem that comes up!...and tell me lots of
stories...Sheee.......

Funny thing though...it is my conscious self ...that actually makes up
the
new trick to distract itself...now that is a feedback loop ...if I ever
heard of one...in one relative ear ... and out the other and back...

Maybe it isn't the conscious self that tries to interfere...become a
player ...
or trickster...perhaps it is one or several of the subconscious
selves...These many selves are the ones...I try to
entertain/distract...so the psi selves/portal can function more
clearly...give more pertinent data...

Man its like raising a small child...or several of them......whether
conscious/unconscious/ subconscious...Tactics must be somewhat fluid...I
guess...No getting stuck in dogma for me...at least not for
long...Reality is changing to fast for that nowadays...

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

Reply | Forward
	
#1211
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:32 am
Subject: Re: Guessing Card color 	docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi Dawna,

I understand... what you say..but the concious self is
relatively slow witted compared to the subself ( any
of them..G). You can make up a trick.. and the
concious self won't track it for a few trials. then it
will memorize the gestalt and cause trouble. I'm sure
lowering brain waves slows the concious self even
more, but eventually it breaks thru.

Bill*

Reply | Forward
	
#1213
 	From: "PJ Gaenir" 
Date: Sun Nov 10, 2002 10:01 pm
Subject: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial 	dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

Hi Bill,

Well maybe the question we should be asking is, why does the
subconscious sabotage remote viewing efforts after awhile?

The answer seems to be (a) fear, and (b) contradicting inner belief
systems.

So then wouldn't the question become, how do we work with our mind to
proactively deal with the fear and changing the belief systems, so
that such hindrances to ongoing or consistent skill are at least
minimized?

That brings us back to my 'experiential and developmental' focus,
where meditations and psychology and all the parts of one's life
become part of the process of 'growth' -- growing those belief
systems out is as much a part of that as anything.

Does this not tie into what McMoneagle has been saying all along --
that good and consistent RV is not about the session process, but
rather, about learning to understand how your own mind works, after
which much of the session process ends up taking care of itself?

So just theoretically here, doing something over and over constantly
torquing the process so that it will be "new" -- to "fake out the
subconscious" for a short period of time that might allow success
before a decline effect -- what would be the point of that?  Isn't
that just avoiding the issue of the deeper psychological / shamanic
work called for?

It seems like a form of denial, "surface" behavior that avoids the
deeper, more damnibly intangible yet profoundly changing self
exploration that could be approached as the alternative.

Sorta like someone who will date a new person each month rather than
actually commit to the compromise relationships require.

I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about any and all of us
studying the subject.  It manifests in a lot of ways.

Maybe the subconscious -- I don't really believe in a SC but it's a
useful model for conversation :-) -- has its own "aspect
personality".  Maybe it is rightfully offended if we want it to step
up, hop to it, do this for me -- yet we refuse to associate with it.
Like it's the parlor slave, to whom we are friendly when we want
something but ignore in every other context outside that.

PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#1217
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Mon Nov 11, 2002 2:03 am
Subject: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial 	docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi PJ,

Perhaps and actually that was my model until the last
time I talked to Rob A. and asked him, he told me it
wasn't really that complicated..it was just the
concious mind getting involved and trying to
superimpose logic and memory and imagination onto
intuition. Not even maliciously..just sort of
cluelessly. Anyway...I'm treating it that way for
awhile.. and also I don't really know how or what deep
  psychologic changes to maek  to increase psi
consistently..so I'll stick with "tricks" for
now..IMHO CRV is such a trick. (oh shouldn't have said
that should I)

Bill*

> Maybe the subconscious -- I don't really believe in
> a SC but it's a
> useful model for conversation :-) -- has its own
> "aspect
> personality".  Maybe it is rightfully offended if we
> want it to step
> up, hop to it, do this for me -- yet we refuse to
> associate with it.
> Like it's the parlor slave, to whom we are friendly
> when we want
> something but ignore in every other context outside
> that.

Reply | Forward
	
#1223
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Mon Nov 11, 2002 7:33 am
Subject: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial 	k9caninek9
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> So just theoretically here, doing something over and over constantly
> torquing the process so that it will be "new" -- to "fake out the
> subconscious" for a short period of time that might allow success
> before a decline effect -- what would be the point of that?  Isn't
> that just avoiding the issue of the deeper psychological / shamanic
> work called for?

I don't know if there is a point.  I also don't know if it will hurt
you to play around with it either.  As it is, every session has some
variation.  Some sessions just seem to go differently than others.
Either way, it's still about looking at and interpreting what's in
your head.

> It seems like a form of denial, "surface" behavior that avoids the
> deeper, more damnibly intangible yet profoundly changing self
> exploration that could be approached as the alternative.

I think the whole rv process is a mental heuristic to help us obtain
some info we want.  It may well be that the most effective mental
heuristic for one person varies from that of another person.  At the
beginning level, I would say that stuff that can get you to get good
results is a good thing because it shows you that you can really do
it.  It allows you to really grok that you personally can do this
thing.  It's not luck, it's you.  Of course, at some point, the
dependence on newness will have to fade, but I think that will happen
anyway as there are only so many ways to change it up in the first
place.  If you do a zillion sessions, you are going to start finding
things that you like to do and you will start doing them.  I don't
think there is any way to avoid that.

> Maybe the subconscious -- I don't really believe in a SC but it's a
> useful model for conversation :-) -- has its own "aspect
> personality".  Maybe it is rightfully offended if we want it to step
> up, hop to it, do this for me -- yet we refuse to associate with it.
> Like it's the parlor slave, to whom we are friendly when we want
> something but ignore in every other context outside that.

I don't think there is an option there either.  Once you start
dealing more with the subconscious, then it will start dealing more
with you.  It will become harder and harder to compartmentalize it.
If you can't deal with the sub piping up more often, then IMO, you
are on the path to destabilization and should slow down and work on
that aspect of self instead.  Too much energy into an unstable system
makes for a REALLY unstable system and trouble waiting to happen.
-E

Reply | Forward
	
#1236
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Tue Nov 12, 2002 1:01 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial 	docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Dear Rich and EVe

How can anyone that does RV not believe in a
subconcious or many levels of it?.. I'm not even going
to argue the point.

  But just a couple of examples..forget RV a minute..
If your mouth waters when looking at something you
really want to eat.. Did you conciously make your
mouth water..?.Do you conciously blink? .  Were you
ever hypnotized? Ever watch anyone you trust be
hynotized.. Ever dream something that was clearly
programed ? Ever become attracted to someone without
knowing why or even conciously wanting too. Ever be
afraid of ( or attracted to) things that make no
concious sense. like mice or spiders or darkenss or
heights or people that look certain ways?. Did you
ever zone out and automatically drive somewhere
without thinking..? Well then where do all these
programs come from.. ? They were all subconcious
programming that became concious only when triggered.

Bill

Reply | Forward
	
#1239
 	From: "PJ Gaenir" 
Date: Tue Nov 12, 2002 1:43 pm
Subject: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial 	dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

> --- Bill Pendragon wrote:
> How can anyone that does RV not believe in a
> subconcious or many levels of it?

LOL.  It's a matter of semantics, but semantics are important because
words define our belief constructs.

I think it was me that said I didn't believe in the SC but it was a
good model for conversation.

I did not say that I believe we are "consciously aware of" every
micron of content that might be part of our overall being at any
given minute, of course. That would be silly.

If one wants to call "everything of which I am not consciously aware
of at this moment" the "subconscious", then that makes sense and that
works for me.

But the SC in that case would change constantly.  Minute to minute.
As would the conscious mind.  It would less "one thing here" and "one
thing there" as a single pool of fluctuating thing, with an arbitrary
dotted line superimposed at some point, but what is within
either "part" would be constantly interacting and changing.

The common usage of the word is to delineate a part of the mind that
is "separated" and, in cultural usage of the term, assumed to be
difficult to reach, mischevious, even frightening.

I think of consciousness kind of like a big pot of stew.  At any
given time, a certain portion of it is on the top - is visible.  With
a little stir you can totally change much of what is on the top and
visible, though the 'lighter' parts in it will usually float on or
somewhat near the surface except during very brief shakeups, and
since it's all mixed up, to the naked eye, the two totally different
surfaces will look pretty similar to a casual onlooker.

The surface is like our 'surface personality' -- our conscious mind
at any given time.  I don't think of it as separated from everything-
else-which-is-us, but rather, 'the combination of aspects of us which
happen to be riding on the surface at any given moment'.  We change
moment to moment often but most around us don't really notice.

The primary reason I try and force the semantics issue in my own head
in areas like these, is to get past the limiting ideas about the
subconscious and the assumed difficulty or exotic nature of "access"
to "its" contents.

It is all us. We are one. We have direct access to what's not at any
given moment conscious, as much as we do to what's in our conscious
mind.  It's just a matter of believing that apparently.

So any "separatist definitions" that I allow my mind to hold on the
process and the nature of this, work against my attempt
to "integrate" myself into the concept of ONE being, not "a mind
divided".

Now per your comments: that much of our daily lives, some for more
than others lol, is almost on "auto-pilot", semi-programmed amoebic-
responses etc., does not prove that the mind is innately created in
two separate pieces, it merely demonstrates that most people have not
made much attempt to become aware of more than what it takes to get
through the average day.  That unique combination of 'what it takes'
for each individual is what's floating on top for them... is what
defines their conscious mind.

People in tough situations often have vastly larger, richer, deeper,
more aware "conscious minds" -- if we are including everything that
is conscious meaning noticed and/or controlled -- it isn't that they
are tuning into their subconscious so to speak, it's that the portion
of the "one thing" that is their mind which they pay attention to is
more expanded.

Some of the things you noted like blinking, salivating, etc., are
close to being autonomic responses.  We can pull this aspect of us
into our conscious awareness too.  There just isn't generally any
reason to do so, and a lifetime of training tells the mind to ignore
such trivia like when we need to blink and get on with the business
of running from the tiger.

So sure, the majority of us "remains below our conscious awareness"
and hence is legitimately called "subconscious".  But the western
usage of this word is almost always implying "two" minds -- the
conscious and subconscious -- with the limen in between that we have
to "break through" in hypnosis for example -- the two minds can talk
to each other but in most cases act like they're at odds.

I notice the more I focus on being one complete entity, with a
constantly flowingness through me of everything, being interested in
and willing to experience many parts of me that are not just
the 'daily whats-on-top', the more other aspects of me seem to come
into the stream of my 'conscious' mind.

The subconscious is defined in the negative -- whatever we don't
bother to include in our awareness at any given moment, is
subconscious.  That's not a specific, given "thing", a separated mind
behind a wall we need to break through.  That's just an arbitrary
pool of "what we're leaving out of ourselves for the moment" because
it's too much trouble to pay attention to. :-)  IMO.

My beliefs subject to change at the drop of a hat usually.

PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#1243
 	From: Richard Krankoski 
Date: Tue Nov 12, 2002 10:35 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial 	Rich_crv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

I can answer yes to several of those questions but I wonder how
or why the SC is tied into RV and more specifically I wonder about
all o fthe talk about training either yourself or your SC to co-operate
for the purpose of getting good RV data.  The RCV world seems to have
adopted the SC as some kind of assistant or fall guy or whatever
and uses it to create RV theory.   I just do not see any basis for it.
And, yes, the most common reference to the SC in RV is that it is
basically "ornery".  :)

What other fields of psi base their work on the SC?  Cayce? Edwards?
Card Readers?  Channelers?  Dowsers?

> Bill Pendragon wrote:
> If your mouth waters when looking at something you
> really want to eat.. Did you conciously make your
> mouth water..?.Do you conciously blink? [snip]

Reply | Forward
	
#1246
 	From: "PJ Gaenir" 
Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 9:38 am
Subject: Re: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial 	dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

> On 12 Nov 2002 at 23:35, Richard Krankoski wrote: What other
> fields of psi base their work on the SC?  Cayce? Edwards? Card
> Readers?  Channelers?  Dowsers?

Well my experience with others who did various forms of divination, is that
initially most people start out thinking it's the universe, or TK, or some
cosmic
power arranging the cards or ouijia thing or dowsing or whatever.

Then later they get to the idea that if they are contacting someone else
(whether channeling or ouija or dowsing a person's info) that the something-
else-is-coming-through energetically and causing the effect.

Later they get to the idea that it's their own subconscious -- they finally
recognize their role in all of it -- but the idea is that their SC is "talking
to"
someone else's SC.  That's still a very linear, electronic sort of model.  We
talk to 'some other separate part of ourself' which then talks to 'some other
separate part of someone else' and reports the data back to our SC which
then reports the data back to us.  Even psi is a bureaucracy for some people!
LOL!

Usually once someone is decently advanced, at least the few I've met, by that
point they think everything is just everything.  That the "division" in our
universe between you, me and my cat and your car is mostly a matter of what
one is paying attention to, and we have the ability to "pay attention to" even
the experience of "being" something or someone else if we wish, or talking
with something, or letting something "have their say through you (channeling),
etc.  It's just a matter of what one pays attention to, what one believes (on
core levels) is possible, and what one fears.  As experience goes on it
becomes clear that even events and places have 'identities' of a sort.

Like the Zen meditations where one "becomes" say, a stone; in my
philosophy, a stone is "an elemental which happens to be within our
physiologically perceived frequency band"; magical "elementals" are just
natural intelligence/identity-groupings that are not in our "physical" band.  It
makes as much sense to talk to a rock or table as talk to an elemental
(something most magicians just don't grok); they are both simple-form "aware
but not self-aware" consciousness.

Bi-location into someone else, which I've done a lot spontaneously but only
once in an RV session (and that incredibly briefly, like 1.5 seconds), is
clearly possible since I've experienced it, although I admit that degree of
merge does have merge-type side effects if it's a really hard core process.
However that degree of merge happening deliberately in RV let alone for any
period beyond a moment is pretty unlikely.

I think, people who believe in the subconscious as a 'separated' part of ourself
would likely believe that everything, at some point, is the SC; those who don't,
would have to take the theory that nothing is "over there separate" in the SC.

Like many areas of psi, we lack terminology for a lot of the subtleties.  In the
area of consciousness, finding even one word for something is novel.  If the
world were in the same situation, for example, words like snow, sleet, hail,
rain, mist, fog, humidity -- would all be ONE word or term, like "wet air" or
something.  Discussion would be difficult because people using the same
words might have entirely different concepts.  Not only for what it means, but
for how "it" is interpreted as well.

And of course, words are developed or utilized based on existing concepts.
So practices which develop "new" concepts -- or simply cause one to
recognize the limits and assumptions in the ones we already have -- leave us
searching for a new model, new words.

And talking too much with the ones we have, to try to make a point, without
having a few simple everybody-knows-the-same-meaning words to use. ;-)

PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#1255
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 2:57 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial 	docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

All of them.

Bill

> --- Richard Krankoski  wrote:
> What other fields of psi base their work on the SC?
> Cayce? Edwards?
> Card Readers?  Channelers?  Dowsers?

Reply | Forward
	
#1247
 	From: Karl Boyken 
Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:35 am
Subject: Re: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial 	kboyken
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> I wonder how
> or why the SC is tied into RV

Rich, I don't know whether my impression is accurate, but I
thought the SC model springs from parapsychological research.
Don't a lot of people who've written about psi research in the
20th century use the model of psi ability being mediated by
the subconscious?

Karl

--
Karl Boyken
kboyken...t
http://soli.inav.net/~kboyken/

We dance 'round in a ring and suppose,
while the Secret sits in the middle and knows.
    --Robert Frost

Reply | Forward
	
#1251
 	From: "David Humphries" 
Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:00 am
Subject: Re: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial 	a_healey56
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Rich,

This is right along the line of reasoning that lead to a question I posted a
few months back.  I don't know how psi works, but I do know that sometimes I
can actually see the target clearly (not very often, though) while RVing, or
have an occasional acute pre-cognitive dream.  Clear audible communications
in plain 20th - or now 21st - century English are involved too.  I'm sure
everyone has experienced both of these and more.  These clear communications
through different types of perceptions tells me that whatever the mechanism
is that conveys them, it can communicate to us in a way that is clear and
obvious to the receiver of the data.  So if the mechanism by which we
receive data can communicate to us clearly sometimes, why then do we get all
of the symbolic bits and pieces that we do, which is almost like the
subconscious is playing games with us, or in your words, it's being ornery.
(That is, if the so-called subconscious is indeed the culprit).  I too
somehow suspect that the subconscious is not to blame.  I have a couple of
thoughts about this, but won't have time to address them until later today.
I'm curious what others think about it.

Dave

> I wonder how or why the SC is tied into RV
> and more specifically I wonder about all of
> the talk about training either yourself or
> your SC to co-operate for the purpose of
> getting good RV data.  The RCV world seems to
> have adopted the SC as some kind of assistant
> or fall guy or whatever and uses it to create
> RV theory.   I just do not see any basis for it.

Reply | Forward
	
#1252
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 7:03 am
Subject: Re: Re: Proactive Psychology vs. RV Denial 	greenmn900...
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

Hi All,

I like the topic of this conversation.  It's interesting to see how different
people view this concept of the SC.

As Palyne said, the idea that the subconscious is somehow separate, almost a
different entity than the conscious, is probably wrong.  I've always thought
it kind of strange when people would describe the SC as a kind of trickster,
or like a recalcitrant child which must be fooled or cajoled into doing what
we want it to do.  I think this is wrong and I suspect that a lot of the
problems people have in RV are related to this view - of the information
being stubbornly held by a part of the mind which doesn't really want to give
it up to the conscious.  It's a belief that adds another layer of difficulty
to RV.

Consciousness is all a matter of where we put our focus.  Since, by
neccessity, we have to put our focus on this consensus reality to experience
it, we become habitually trained to ignore the vast information that is also
available to us - which is literally every bit of information that ever has
or will be.  So, the act of refocusing (the kind of refocusing we do in RV)
is difficult because we're rusty at it.  Just like trying to ride a bicycle,
for example, upside down and backward would be difficult and would take a lot
of time and practice to achieve with any ease, operating and controlling our
focus is difficult because we're so accustomed to doing it in only one way.
This is just one more reason (hell, it may be the single most important
reason) that continual, consistent practice is what really makes one a good
RVer.

Regarding bi-location "into" someone else, Palyne said:
>"However that degree of merge happening
> deliberately in RV let alone for any
> period beyond a moment is pretty unlikely."

I'd like to know why you think this is so, PJ.  Why is it unlikely that it
would happen deliberately and why is it unlikely that it would occur for
anything more than a brief moment?

Best Regards,
Don

--------------------------------
Moderator's note: Because although I believe everybody has some degree of psi
talent, I have not yet seen any evidence that the vast majority of the
population has the psychology necessary to allow that degree of (or type of)
target contact.  Those who do, can probably get quite extensively into it.

My experience has been though that this kind of identity shift causes some
profound cognitive dissonance issues, and treads on some really critical core
psychological constructs about identity.  These can be dealt with over time, but
I think it is quite rare to find this openness operating without inhibition in
most people.  That is just my experience from talking with a lot of people over
years.

In addition to the above factors, I believe that the majority of people in the
RV world have had the questionable advantage of "training", and the CRV gurus
tend to either believe that such is highly improbable, or "dangerous" -- either
belief tends to transfer to students in conversation and further slants the
psychology of the would-be viewer against this occurring (or much).

So you see my comment isn't about what is possible psychically, merely about
what is probable socially, psychologically, etc.  Regards. -- PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#1256
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 3:19 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Denial of SC Tricks is a trick 	docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Dear Deniers of SC tricks,

PLEASE ! do a little Ouija ..you will soon find you
are comming up with answers that follow a plot you did
not conciously make up..and yet it's a real plot awith
somekind of logic..but usually it's  complete BS..
therefore.. one has to conclude that the SC (or
whatever creates the ouija response) is capable of
being foolish also. Try it and you will soon agree.
Rich you are in desparate need of some serious Ouija
work!

Best Regards,

Bill

---------------------------
Moderator's note: LOL. If "we" contain "all", there is nothing in that which
suggests that every possible identity in the 'All' is either truthful or valid
'in our reality'. In fact, you can talk to a wide variety of identities which
may be utterly sincere and specific and "'where' that perspective experiences"
it is accurate but "where our conscious selves perceive" they are not.

Just because we don't "deliberately" invent something, does that mean it has no
part of us -- it must be "the other" -- whether that-separate-Subconscious or
Spirit?  Or is it merely that we are "projecting" everything into the role of
"other-ness"? -- for many people the term subconscious is nearly as separate
from them as a separate "entity" would be.  Is it possible that there is no such
thing as "other", only of our unwillingness to recognize (or admit) ourselves in
what we experience?    PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#1258
 	From: "Sharon Webb" 
Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:31 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Denial of SC Tricks is a trick 	sharwebb_30512
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

If you stick with the Ouija long enough, you might find that it isn't complete
BS.  :-)

Sharon
sharwebb...net
www.fractalus.com/sharon

>  From: Bill Pendragon
>  PLEASE ! do a little Ouija ..you will soon find you
>  are comming up with answers that follow a plot you did
>  not conciously make up..and yet it's a real plot awith
>  somekind of logic..but usually it's  complete BS..
>  therefore.. one has to conclude that the SC (or
>  whatever creates the ouija response) is capable of
>  being foolish also. Try it and you will soon agree.

Reply | Forward
	
#1266
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 10:17 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Denial of SC Tricks is a trick 	docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> --- Sharon Webb wrote:
> If you stick with the Ouija long enough, you might
> find that it isn't complete BS.  :-)

Hi Sharon,

I very much agree. But one argument at a time is
enough for me...G

Best Regards,

Bill

-----------------------------
Moderator's note: So.... if working something seriously and ongoing can move it
from being a joke to being interesting and potentially worthwhile, then is your
subconscious a joker, as you're saying in posts today, or serious? Are we sure
it is the subconscious that is a joker, and not the conscious self sabotaging
any attempt to use intuitive information rather than logic?  So... if so... then
wouldn't that reverse the whole initial assumption... that it's really all about
us to begin with, not some trickster other-ness called the subconscious, who's
being the fall-guy for our quite conscious psychological issues? :-) Just being
a sort of devil's advocate here... PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#1259
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 2:50 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Denial of SC Tricks is a trick 	greenmn900...
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

Bill,

The question here is what exactly are you communicating with when you use the
Ouija?  Are you sure it's your subconscious?  The boards are notorious for
behaving exactly as you describe.  Hell, if you persist in using them, sooner
or later they usually get around to telling you to kill, Fluffy, your cat,
and other sweet pieces of advice.  They will also claim to be all kinds of
people or beings and when confronted with evidence that it's a lie, they
switch to another lie.

I know of no other means of divination (if Ouija boards can truly be called
that) that behave in this way.  Not dowsing, not scrying, not anything.  The
only exceptions I can think of are things like channeling, mediumship, and
attempts at alien communications.  The reason may be that these boards were
specifically devised to contact "spirits", at least according to the history
that I've read.  And as with channeling, etc., this always leads to
ridiculous half-truths and often airy, pscho-spiritual pablum - at best.

PJ, I don't believe 'we' contain "all".  However, I do believe we do contain
what might best be described as reflections of "all".  That's ONLY my belief
- and ONLY at this moment....lol.

Best Regards,
Don

YOU are your subconscious.  It's not a separate being with it's own drives
and wishes.  It's just the part of you that is below the liminal threshold
most of the time.  I don't think the SC is no more a trickster than the
person it is part of.

Reply | Forward
	
#1268
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 10:24 pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Devil and the Ouiga 	docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi Don,

Well I see it as many things being linked into the
subconcious including nasty entities and angels and
everything in between. Personally, I never got any
evil advise from a ouiga. Some surprise truth and some
nonsense..much the same as RV or scrying. But that
doesn't mean it doesnt happen. I remember a neighbor
lady that was a very religious Lutheran and every time
she asked the Ouiga who controlled it ..the Ouiga said
THE DEVIL. Every time I asked it said... "YOU"... Now
I love cats so can't be the devil..so I suspect it was
just different subconcious views....G

Bill

> --- greenmn wrote:
> The question here is what exactly are you
> communicating with when you use the
> Ouija?  Are you sure it's your subconscious?

Reply | Forward
	
#1261
 	From: "David Humphries" 
Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 9:40 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Denial of SC Tricks is a trick 	a_healey56
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hey Bill,

I am more inclined toward believing that if one believes that the
subconscious is a trickster, that the trick is more likely on them.  This
discussion, however, could go round and round in circles unless there is
some consensus on what the subconscious actually is and how it works, and
that doesn't seem likely either.

Regarding ouija, I know many people who fervently believe that the ouija
response you mention below would be due to malevolent spirits, mischievious
entities, delusion, and maybe some more possibilities too, none of which are
verifiable, and seem to me to all emanate from dogmatic beliefs of one
variety or another.  The truth is somewhere, and maybe contained within some
dogma.  I just don't know right now.

Dave

Reply | Forward
	
#1267
 	From: Richard Krankoski 
Date: Wed Nov 13, 2002 10:13 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Denial of SC Tricks is a trick 	Rich_crv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

haha,

You must remember my Ouija story I have told several times.

Rich

Reply | Forward
	
#1280
 	From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m
Date: Thu Nov 14, 2002 6:41 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Denial of SC Tricks is a trick 	maliolana
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Aloha PJ,

Well I can only talk about my 'trickster"...I feel closest to Nita on
this...(sort of a triparthide or omniparthide.haha...An Inside integral
part of me...outside me...and not sub but conscious self /or one of many
subs...or other...or all of the above...

I chose to anthromorphize my self evaluation and determinations of what
is reality...This allows me to use more elements of self in my psychic
toolbox!~...hahaha...and enjoy it a hell of a lot more...but I never
underestimate a wise one......nor fall into any belief system that
sucks like quick sand...or demands blind adherance to dogma of any
kind...I am outa there!...hahaha
All seeker dialogues are all good with me...at least untill it becomes
obvious that they aren't...haha...Ahhh... this holistic talk really
turns me on... hahaha... say my mammal/primate.keltic/blackfeet/viking
selves......my entire being is many faceted...not just my
face...hahahah

The only time I feel real dogmatic myself ...about
psi...anyway......is when someone else makes proclamations about
esoteric info that they cannot prove ...yet they insist on a true/false
or right/wrong scenario...Much too limiting for me...

I even really liked most of  Ann Rices books......some of them were
great...

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