Future Memory and RV

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
There is a tiny 'modify' link at the top right of any message that you post, that you can click on, to edit a message. Just take the slashes out of the first quote tag and it'll resolve.

It's not a brain thing. It's just that any new system is hard to get the hang of and tkr's has a lot of options!

I'm especially fond of this one: ==> ;D

PJ
 

Glyn

New Member
Hi EC,

While driving home last night I did a lot of thinking about this subject regarding one of my sessions.

FM really ties the old brain-cells in knots doesn't it? I think some of mine have already jumped ship :D

You were talking about a session of yours and also of T-Bone's where it appears that the FM data that was retrieved was 'first impression' of feedback, and wondered whether that was significant.

Well yes I think it is. The example I gave from Dunne was a first impression of subsequent 'feedback' (his reading of the newspaper and getting the figures wrong). Yours was first impression, as was T-Bone's.

That experiment I spoke of in a previous mail where I viewed something in the feedback email that had nothing to do with the intended feedback...that also was first impression. I know of one other (an amazing story told to me that I have yet to relate here) that again was first impression.

If for some reason the data is accessed from the first impression of feedback...why? Detail of this incorrect first perception can come out in the session too. Heck! Why can't we then see ahead just that little way to get the correct information? If we were obtaining the information from our future memories of the 'whole' feedback then that would surely be evident. But it seems as if we are not.

Is it somehow because the later recognition of the mistake after the feedback somehow makes that mistake itself more *memorable*?

Or is it that the access 'window' is so short that first impression is all we can get, and unintentional incorrect first observations of the feedback have just highlighted this?

Would Viewer intent overcome this, or is it something that for some reason is bound to happen?

Anybody else got any examples of this sort of thing happening to them? Please post, as we need all the information we can get on this.

Thanks for that post EC. Wow, there's certainly a lot of food for thought on this Board isn't there. :)

Kind regards,
Glyn
 

Glyn

New Member
Hi PJ,

On a target mentioned elsewhere on the board, of Mae West, when I first saw the feedback, which was incredibly tiny and poor graphic, I actually though there was a man in uniform on the left, and her on the right, and then something between then (a goblet she was holding).  In the session I described, initially, two people with something between them.  On feedback I was instantly aware that this was correct.  Then later was aware that this was totally wrong, lol.  That has happened to me more than once--that my session seemed correct for 5 seconds, then I realized I was seeing the FB totally wrong.  

I've only just got to your mail. Yet more examples of first impression! This is getting really interesting.

The REAL question is, was the session wrong because I saw the FB wrong, or did I see the FB wrong because I was so aware of my session data? :)  That is a question Dunne didn't think to ask, I suspect. ;-)

I wouldn't mind betting that you are 100 percent correct there PJ, but then he was a man on his own, whose notions were way before his 'time' (bad pun).....ridiculed side-lined and thought to be a bit 'flaky' I think. He didn't have the benefit of the internet and a group like this who accept psi as 'given' either. :)

I think your session was *right* because you saw the feedback *correctly*....even though, because of your initial mis-perception you did not see the *intended* feedback immediately. ;) This makes even more sense if this 'first impression of feedback/small window' thing plays any part.

A viewer who accepts data another person got, or a viewer they respect got, as validation, is far more likely to consider that stuff 'feedback' on a psychological level, even if it's not officially.  This can be a real problem, since it is often difficult to keep all info except the formal feedback point from a viewer for all eternity of course.

Absolutely, anything connected with the target taken on board by the Viewer at any time before his death will form a memory, and who knows what governs the point of access.

 It should be very clear prior to a session what the target is, and what the feedback is.

My jury is out about the importance of the Tasking (unless it is part of the feedback), but the person who actually supplies the feedback (whether that turns out to be the actual Tasker or another), has a very critical role IMO..as does the Viewer at feedback time.

If the feedback is not clear, or is incomplete, or the Viewer does not observe the feedback correctly, or there are misperceptions, then that could affect the result. The moment of feedback....where the first information enters the memory of the Viewer..whether it happens 'cleanly'...now that moment may prove to be *vital*.

Feedback is easier to control with something like a static photo feedback than with a live or moving event. If FM is at work, then clarity of session could be determined by what happens in the future...not the tasking in the past.

In RV *practice*--using just photo practice here as the example, as there are other types of feedback and other types of tasking even on photo FB, in practice-- the goal is to describe 'the focus of the photo at the time the photo was taken'.  So it doesn't matter what is outside the camera focus; the session is specifically about what is either captured in, or inferred by what is captured in, the feedback itself.  That doesn't mean you're viewing the picture-on-paper, but it does mean that by nature, your tasking is directed to what has, or is inferred by, actual feedback (that pic on paper).  The act of RV will make it obvious quickly that you are not viewing the paper, because there is too much sensory and even 'experience' that are IN the target.

Yes, but if FM is an issue then I think the reason we may get impressions of things not in the immediate feedback (photo or otherwise) is that at the time of feedback other memories from previous existance will be triggered anyway. For example, think of a tree now....perhaps you can hear the leaves rustle, maybe smell a woodland smell. Then we have the added complication mentioned above...the picking up in the session of subsequent future memories too.

Future memory may be at work in RV, as I suspect it is a big part of psi across the board--not all, but much.

Yes, I agree. Even if FM is at work then *how* is the question. It actually may not be FM after all...but just appear to be. (Some will disagree that it even appears to be FM at all...it remains to be seen).

Why this first impression thing too? Is it a red-herring? There is not enough data. If it was reported to be happening time after time after time then that would be something else of course. Also what if there is a series of separate feedback events relevant to a target? I don't mean as in multi-tasking like in some operational targets, but one target that could change over time...ie the result of a sequence of events where feedback could come in stages and result could depend on access point. Is it always a short first window of each set of memories associated with that target that is accessed? That would be interesting to ascertain.

A good way to really screw up a viewer in training is to regularly screw up their feedback.
.

I think that to go anywhere towards disproving FM we would need to do just that ;) That is why the concept of masking interests me so much....but I would need to know the sequence of events, feedback especially, and see the sessions etc before coming to any personal conclusion as to whether FM is in there somewhere.

Actually it may be easier to dis-prove FM than to prove it if we cannot dis-prove it . Does that make sense? :D

There are two time points to best muddle feedback: at the initial point of FB ("Well the target was the moon, but while making this tasking there was a black cat on my desk, and I was looking at the print of 'starry starry night' on my wall while I considered 9/11 and the implications of it and worried about my mother who is ill and what would become of her horses.") and after FB ("Well you got A which wasn't in the FB but that's actually true, and here is a news article with 101 other points on or related to the topic in case it's interesting to you, and you got X which seems totally wrong but it's not because I was thinking about that at the time I did this tasking.")  Either of those examples violates what could be considered a decent RV protocol--and if you blow the protocol, it isn't RV; it may be psychic, but RV got a good reputation BECAUSE considerations like this were taken seriously and upheld.  

:D :D Oh yes, hasn't that happened to all of us. Damnably frustrating too. Again this is all feedback and all gets in the memory. The less unnecessary 'confirmation' at feedback time the better IMO.

Trouble is, where do we draw the line?....discussion after a session is fun and vital. The thing maybe we need to do is to give feedback time a Start and End marker like a session itself can have.......so anything said after the feedback 'END' point is not to be taken on board as part of the feedback. Actually if this 'first impression' thing holds up it may be vital to say nothing just *before* feedback rather than worry about after.

Well we could try :D

The more insidious part of the above examples is that the viewer is being trained, gradually, to consider the validation of the tasker/trainer to be *more relevant than the factual feedback* they were given officially.  If you want to build a cult this is great, but if you want viewers who can work independently, it's not the approach of choice.  
.

Again I agree. If FM is at work then it may only be feedback and how it is presented/occurs that matters; and the intent of the Viewer, on both a conscious and subconscious level to access this information. Quality of Viewer and strength of focus would also be highly relevant I should think. It may even be possible for very good Viewers to front-load themselves and still access fairly clean memories of future feedback events.

A real interest in what effect the future has on remote viewing--both the development of viewers, and the results in a session--can lead to a lot of insight.  I think FM is a very interesting topic.

Oh isn't it just PJ? But how convoluted (is that a typo?), and what fun speculating :). Some may think it a load of nonsense, and it may yet turn out to be.......but I don't think there is anything to replace it just yet.

Great mail PJ. Thanks for your own insights.

Phew, I do rattle on don't I? That's enough for a while I think :D

Kind regards,
Glyn
 

Fire

New Member
Howdy Glyn,

If for some reason the data is accessed from the first impression of feedback...why? Detail of this incorrect first perception can come out in the session too. Heck! Why can't we then see ahead just that little way to get the correct information? If we were obtaining the information from our future memories of the 'whole' feedback then that would surely be evident. But it seems as if we are not.
I am inclined to think that anything touching emotion has more... 'momentum' within us.  I think the first view of FB and apparent validation carries more 'oomph' than the later reconsideration.  Although I think one can deliberately work on that sort of thing.

In some other esoteric arts where 'intent' is an issue, very specific focus is had toward generating emotion and other energies to bring to bear on one's intent (will), to strengthen it.  And, to specifically being very self-disciplined about not allowing oneself to 'wallow' in self-validations and emotions and daydreams and life situations that will validate or contribute to a result one does not want.  The same holds true for RV, but since it isn't generally taught as an esoteric art, much of that doesn't get talked about.

Or is it that the access 'window' is so short that first impression is all we can get, and unintentional incorrect first observations of the feedback have just highlighted this?
Hmmmn. I can't say.  I don't think of it as an access window though.  I don't think of it as 'going' into the future or over-there to the target; if time or space don't exist then everything is here, now.  What varies is attention and memory I suspect; but both of those are pretty deep subjects on their own!

Would Viewer intent overcome this, or is it something that for some reason is bound to happen?
I'm not sure I think anything is 'bound' to happen.  And I think the term 'intent' covers a pretty big range inside a human.

It has been my experience for a long time--more with others' sessions than my own, though this is mostly because my practice has always had to play third string to the rest of my life--that feedback, including the many aspects of 'validation' that are not formal feedback, has a terrific impact on a session.

However it's also been my observation that this is correlated with viewer skill, which is to say, that 'sharpening or intensifying intent' may be a big part of viewer skill--and that same quality may be a big part of dealing with the many wrenches that can be thrown into the process.

PJ
 
W

wizopeva

Guest
My jury is out about the importance of the Tasking (unless it is part of the feedback), but the person who actually supplies the feedback (whether that turns out to be the actual Tasker or another), has a very critical role IMO..as does the Viewer at feedback time.


Well some unofficial experimentation could easily be done. In a best case scenario, there would be 3 people involved, one viewer, one tasker, and one person to supply a diff feedback then the original tasking. One would task the original target and another would supply the incorrect feedback. Neither of those would see the session. Only the viewer would see his/her own session and the viewer would only see the incorrect feedback. If such a target plan were mixed in with a number of other sessions that did not have a incorrect feedback but were done normally, it would be interesting to see if the viewer could figure out which target ID had incorrect feedback.


[Actually it may be easier to dis-prove FM than to prove it if we cannot dis-prove it . Does that make sense?  :D

Well yeah, technically I think it's some kind of philosophical tenent somewhere that says you can never really PROVE a theory, only fail to disprove it. So it's probably a huge exageration to say that the feeble few experiments (which are mostly case study anyway) currently being done by the rv community could constitute 'proof.' That doesn't stop them from being very interesting though. ;D


Trouble is, where do we draw the line?....discussion after a session is fun and vital. The thing maybe we need to do is to give feedback time a Start and End marker like a session itself can have.......so anything said after the feedback 'END'  point is not to be taken on board as part of the feedback. Actually if this 'first impression' thing holds up it may be vital to say nothing just *before* feedback rather than worry about after.

Well I do think it's very usefully to sort of mentally impose limits on what you will tolerate as being included in the feedback. Otherwise you could drive yourself bananas and IMO, it would probably not be good for the viewing either.
-E
 

Fire

New Member
{Glyn:}My jury is out about the importance of the Tasking (unless it is part of the feedback), but the person who actually supplies the feedback (whether that turns out to be the actual Tasker or another), has a very critical role IMO..as does the Viewer at feedback time.
Well, you know, this is an area that highlights an issue that is really a problem in this whole field.  And that is, that what really is (has to be, will be, is "causative" in RV), is NOT the same in the lab with experts as it is in the layman's world with novices.

The lab can prove that a viewer doesn't have to be influenced by feedback.  But it becomes very difficult to prove that 'all' viewers don't have to be; the nature of RV itself means that even the people in the lab are pretty much only a very tiny% of people in RV (let alone in the world) to begin with.

Realistically--for us mere mortals out here in Layman's Land--feedback appears to influence sessions, at least for quite some time.  For experts, it often doesn't--to the point where the viewer may even explain in session why feedback is wrong, or just that is.  

Examples:
1 - Ingo Swann when he started doing RV by 'coordinates', described an island, land, surrounded by water.  The atlas showed empty ocean.  He adamantly insisted there was land there.  They realized they had a pitifully poor atlas, and he and Puthoff went and bought a really good, much more detailed atlas.  Guess what--the tasker didn't know, and the original feedback didn't show it, but there was indeed an island at his coordinates.  This not only demonstrated that feedback doesn't have to drive a session, but that the 'coordinates' system of tasking really worked.

2 - Joe McMoneagle, on a television demo setup, was put on this island alone with a film camera to do the session, and the session was precog based on which of five possible locations (all blind of course) would be selected for 'feedback'. The protocol was set up so they'd secure the session, then get Joe with the film guys, select the feedback, then drive to that location for some 'live' feedback.  They selected feedback and in trying to get to it, the traffic in london I think it was, was really insane, so they decided it wouldn't matter if they just went to a different one.  Of course, that blew the protocol--they didn't task him on what they visited, they tasked him on what they SELECTED to begin with. Anyway, they get feedback, and after, they sit and watch the film, and they can clearly see that McMoneagle is describing the session selected--but not the one he ended up visiting as his 'feedback'.  Joe tells them, "Just keep watching."  Before the session was over, Joe (on the film) says this was the target selected, but they would have difficulty getting to it, and would decide to visit a different location, and here's a little on that, but since they tasked him on what was selected, not visited, he must stay in protocol, that is why he was providing what he did.  The producers of most shows he's done work like that on are literally in awe.  It is kind of funny.  Anyway, so he had a whole "live" feedback--those are pretty powerful--yet not only described what he'd been tasked with anyway, but even the detail of the protocol break, the switch in feedback, etc.

{Eva:}Well some unofficial experimentation could easily be done.
I think a small ton of official experimentation has been had on most of these basic scenarios.  Unfortunately, this is all the 'little stuff' in the heads of 'the people who were there'--it's not like they write a formal paper on every detail. Sigh.

{Eva:}Well I do think it's very usefully to sort of mentally impose limits on what you will tolerate as being included in the feedback.  Otherwise you could drive yourself bananas and IMO, it would probably not be good for the viewing either.
Well the really good viewers I know are adamant about feedback not being screwed up for the learning process... but also about viewer intent being the thing that "really" drives results, and the issues that if a viewer believes feedback (or any experience near it) "will" bleed into their session even if wrong--it will.

PJ
 

Glyn

New Member
Hi PJ,

The lab can prove that a viewer doesn't have to be influenced by feedback.

The thing is, re FM theory, any or all future information/experiences associated with the target/experiment could quality as feedback; not just the 'intended' version.

That's the problem...Not to be influenced by feedback would mean a subject not being influenced by any of his/her future memories of that target/experience...right throughout their life. Are the labs sure of that I wonder? They would have to be to discount FM.

I have not heard of any recent lab experiments looking specifically for FM being at work in 'psi', although I would love to know of any results.

The only way they could try to be certain is to keep the info from the subject/Viewer until after the time of his/her death (not to publish results or discuss or anything either....just in case of leaks). Any results published before the death of the subject would need to give procedure, and that may mean the subject could get to know; even years in the future.......and storing a memory. It would be experimentally unsafe otherwise IMO...as far as disproving whether FM is at work in psi-perception anyway.

Examples:
1 - Ingo Swann when he started doing RV by 'coordinates', described an island, land, surrounded by water.  The atlas showed empty ocean.  He adamantly insisted there was land there.  They realized they had a pitifully poor atlas, and he and Puthoff went and bought a really good, much more detailed atlas.  Guess what--the tasker didn't know, and the original feedback didn't show it, but there was indeed an island at his coordinates.  This not only demonstrated that feedback doesn't have to drive a session, but that the 'coordinates' system of tasking really worked.

The thing is PJ, Ingo's memories did eventually contain the latter information, so he could have skipped forward to those. Not originally intended feedback, no, but feedback nonetheless, and those memories would have stood out quite sharply. Still possibly FM at work, IMO.

2 - Joe McMoneagle, on a television demo setup, was put on this island alone with a film camera to do the session, and the session was precog based on which of five possible locations (all blind of course) would be selected for 'feedback'. The protocol was set up so they'd secure the session, then get Joe with the film guys, select the feedback, then drive to that location for some 'live' feedback.  They selected feedback and in trying to get to it, the traffic in london I think it was, was really insane, so they decided it wouldn't matter if they just went to a different one.  Of course, that blew the protocol--they didn't task him on what they visited, they tasked him on what they SELECTED to begin with. Anyway, they get feedback, and after, they sit and watch the film, and they can clearly see that McMoneagle is describing the session selected--but not the one he ended up visiting as his 'feedback'.  Joe tells them, "Just keep watching."  Before the session was over, Joe (on the film) says this was the target selected, but they would have difficulty getting to it, and would decide to visit a different location, and here's a little on that, but since they tasked him on what was selected, not visited, he must stay in protocol, that is why he was providing what he did.  The producers of most shows he's done work like that on are literally in awe.  It is kind of funny.  Anyway, so he had a whole "live" feedback--those are pretty powerful--yet not only described what he'd been tasked with anyway, but even the detail of the protocol break, the switch in feedback, etc.

Awesome! Joe didn't only access his future memories as to what he would eventually learn had happened, but he rationalised the information into linear order too. Wonderful example of a brilliant Viewer at work; but still nothing to convince me FM wasn't involved.

I think we may have to agree to disagree about some of this PJ ;-) ;-).

But however it works, it's 'psi', and isn't it wonderful! :D

Grins from,
Glyn
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Howdy Glyn,

The thing is, re FM theory, any or all future information/experiences associated with the target/experiment could quality as feedback; not just the 'intended' version.
Yeah, I agree.

I expect it might come down to the viewer. In other words, if I validate what person X says, and not what person Y says, it's a lot more likely that person X's comments will be part of the 'informal validation' I get that might be added to what my mind considers feedback.

(This is seen even in research, what they call the 'sheep and goats' effect, where viewers seem to best 'match' those they validate--and this is even psychically, without consciously knowing a certain other viewer was involved or what they got on the target.)

So in other words, if the viewer is highly disciplined with themselves to only validate 'the eventual proven-right feedback', then they might 'pay more attention' to that--even if it came around 30 years later--than they did to the feedback they got an hour after the session.

So in the end, like everything else, perhaps it all comes down to the viewer.

After all, we are equally exposed to all our experiences from birth to death--what varies is how much 'attention we pay' to one thing or another. We control our attention--or at least, we can control a whole lot more of it through discipline and focus on doing exactly that.

I have not heard of any recent lab experiments looking specifically for FM being at work in 'psi', although I would love to know of any results. The only way they could try to be certain is to keep the info from the subject/Viewer until after the time of his/her death (not to publish results or discuss or anything either....just in case of leaks).
It's been done, in several cases. Dr. Ed May told me about sessions done by viewers, some of whom are still alive, some of whom are dead, in which feedback was never revealed (or perhaps the target not yet even generated!) until after the viewer was dead. One of these was Pat Price as far as I know. Others, they're waiting for them to kick off. ;-)

The thing is PJ, Ingo's memories did eventually contain the latter information, so he could have skipped forward to those. Not originally intended feedback, no, but feedback nonetheless, and those memories would have stood out quite sharply. Still possibly FM at work, IMO.
Absolutely!--and that's the hardest part, because he wouldn't have seen the new atlas if he hadn't demanded better feedback, but it might only be having seen better feedback that created the effect in his session. ;D It's damnably confusing as far as coming to any conclusion one way or the other. But since we know just from seeing it happen that a person's future 'can' (doesn't necessarily HAVE to, but CAN) affect their session, we can see the importance of having set parameters to feedback.

For example, if your target is X, and your tasking is 'the building of X', the feedback should show X, and that is that. Yes, there will be aspects of X you get that aren't in feedback--e.g., conceptuals or smells aren't usually in pictures -- but if a viewer needs that level of feedback they should be working on targets with more/better feedback assigned with the tasking, or on live sites, or things like that.

If a viewer goes to the internet after a session and reads 14 web links all about X, things related to X, other factors of X, X in the past, present, speculations for the future etc., and 'validates' their session data because it matches some of that, they've not only blown decent RV protocol all to heck but they've now enlarged the 'possible data set' to a small universe. It's the same with targets that are "news" issues--every media story in any form heard about it from now until eternity is going to end up being ad-hoc 'potential validation'.

Awesome! Joe didn't only access his future memories as to what he would eventually learn had happened, but he rationalised the information into linear order too. Wonderful example of a brilliant Viewer at work; but still nothing to convince me FM wasn't involved.
Actually I assume it WAS involved--he was specifically targeting the future, after all, and he was personally involved in the future, so that makes more of a case 'for' FM than against it.

(I wasn't making cases against it, only exampling that 'formal' feedback--and you know what I think about the hazy definition on what is really 'feedback' for most people--doesn't have to drive sessions. That was just one small point though. It doesn't contradict FM necessarily, since as you point out, the future is not limited to formal feedback.)

I think we may have to agree to disagree about some of this PJ ;-) ;-).
Well not yet, but keep trying, I am sure we can find something to argue about! ;D

PJ
 
P

pyre

Guest
Hi Glyn

Very interesting about Future Memory. Such a fascinating topic. I'll look into the book. This is another view tho, not having read that theory. Maybe it could be that there is a sort of etheric substance that permeates everything. And if a person is able to reach the point where they have access to be able to mingle with tis level, then they just "know" everything and anything they want to - future, past or present.

I've had glimpses of this after I learned meditation back in 1970. THen other things seemed to shut this ability off for a while.

Just a thought. (Is that your photo beside your post? Lovely!)
Kristen
 

Glyn

New Member
Hi Kristen,

Maybe it could be that there is a sort of etheric substance that permeates everything. And if a person is able to reach the point where they have access to be able to mingle with tis level, then they just "know" everything and anything they want to  -  future, past or present.

Oh yes, I'm not totally tied in to FM theory, I'm open to all and every consideration, but as FM fascinates me so much I thought I would go on about it a bit here :)

I've had glimpses of this after I learned meditation back in 1970. THen other things seemed to shut this ability off for a while.
.

If you haven't read Lynn McTaggart's "The Field" Kristen, then I would very much recommend that you do so....it's about just the sort of thing you're speaking of. And who knows...it may enable access to our FMs ;).


(Is that your photo beside your post? Lovely!

;D If only Kristen...if only.

Kind thoughts,
Glyn
 

Glyn

New Member
Hi PJ,

I expect it might come down to the viewer.  In other words, if I validate what person X says, and not what person Y says, it's a lot more likely that person X's comments will be part of the 'informal validation' I get that might be added to what my mind considers feedback.

Mmmm, yes I agree, a future memory, at any 'snapshot' point in time, could consist of memories which include the opinions of others, not necessarily the 'whole' truth of the matter which could come to light further downstream.

Also at work could sometimes be the desire to please, which can be enormously strong, especially in connection with the 'Guru Factor'. To retrieve a memory, unconsciously, which would be in accord with what it is expected that the guru figure would wish to see.. perhaps.

Yes, you're right PJ, the impact of that sort of thing should be borne in mind......along with the other 3 million pitfalls ;D.

So in other words, if the viewer is highly disciplined with themselves to only validate 'the eventual proven-right feedback', then they might 'pay more attention' to that--even if it came around 30 years later--than they did to the feedback they got an hour after the session.

Yes, if a Viewer constantly deliberately tries for 'end-game', then if feedback shown straight after the target is not, as you say, 'the eventual proven-right feedback', then it could appear, in the short term anyway, that the Viewer has messed up. Getting proven right just before dropping dead from old age doesn't have such a high satisfaction quotient I should think. :D

 Dr. Ed May told me about sessions done by viewers, some of whom are still alive, some of whom are dead, in which feedback was never revealed (or perhaps the target not yet even generated!) until after the viewer was dead.  One of these was Pat Price as far as I know.  Others, they're waiting for them to kick off. ;-)

That's the only way to do it perhaps, (disprove FM), but Dunne's theory of serial time caters for that too, and some modern theories appear to me to be similar. It's hard enough getting people to consider that we may access our future memories in the first place though, let alone being able to get at our memories across dimensions of time/probability. :p

If a viewer goes to the internet after a session and reads 14 web links all about X, things related to X, other factors of X, X in the past, present, speculations for the future etc., and 'validates' their session data because it matches some of that, they've not only blown decent RV protocol all to heck but they've now enlarged the 'possible data set' to a small universe.

Yep, and we've probably all done that. ::). 

It's the same with targets that are "news" issues--every media story in any form heard about it from now until eternity is going to end up being ad-hoc 'potential validation'.

Yes, maybe so, with all the speculation, lies, spin, dissinformation, imagination, personal bias, mistaken assumptions, half-formed thoughts, associations, connections etc etc thrown in for good measure..mixed up and maybe half-forgotten too. No wonder some of our sessions are a mess. ??? .

Actually I assume it WAS involved--he was specifically targeting the future, after all, and he was personally involved in the future, so that makes more of a case 'for' FM than against it.

(I wasn't making cases against it, only exampling that 'formal' feedback--and you know what I think about the hazy definition on what is really 'feedback' for most people--doesn't have to drive sessions.  That was just one small point though.  It doesn't contradict FM necessarily, since as you point out, the future is not limited to formal feedback.)

Sorry, PJ, I actually misinterpreted the meaning of your mail.

keep trying, I am sure we can find something to argue about!  ;D

OK ;)...I'll think of something for my next mail. There is apparent paradox of FM theory that needs talking through.

Cheers for now,
Grins from,
Glyn
 

trypper

New Member
I get future memories sometimes, Glyn

As a matter of fact, when I was reading the newspaper this morning suddenly I remembered reading an article in the future about how Islamic terriorists had shifted their focus to business interests.

Instead of going after political or military targets, they were targeting commercial interests... manufacturing plants and such.

I remembered wondering how this would effect world trade.

Anyway... it was one of those strange things that sometimes happen to me so I thought I'd mention it.

trypper
 

Kristen

Member
Hi Dear Glynnie!

Thanks for reminding me about "The Field"! Yes, I'll get it & read it. All this is so interesting!

Take care,
With a smile, ;)
Kristen
 

Glyn

New Member
Hi Kristen :),

Thanks for reminding me about "The Field"! Yes, I'll get it & read it.  All this is so interesting!

Have you managed to get a copy? If so, what did you think?

If you are interested in FM Kristen then another book you should definitely get under your belt is "Future Memory & Time.. A new Skill of Mind" by Sean O'Donnell.

I am re- reading it at the moment. If you have any problems getting it let me know as I do not know if it was published widely. Dr O'Donnell refers to it as it 'Precall' or 'Anti-memory' more than 'Future memory' as he thinks it makes the concept clearer, but he means the same thing. He speaks of Dunne.

He says that he announced written instructions on how to use 'Precall' at the London Parascience conference in 1973, (and speaks about being rubbished by some..just as Dunne was it appears :-/.)..and he goes on to say that in 1974 he started to hear of various reports on 'learned intuition from America. He mentions remote viewing and 'learned ESP'.

Very interesting book. IMO Dunne was the 'father' of FM theory, but Dr O'Donnell's ideas on it are far more 'modern'; and definitely less confusing ;).

He thinks that it may be that an "internal Censor" (presumably to keep us anchored to linear time and therefore functional in this physical world), may be the reason, quote "......why paranormalists have left that ever-open option of time violation so strikingly ignored".

Well publicly anyway ;)

His book was first published in 1996, but his conclusions are based on "..an average of about 8 hours of direct precall experience weekly, and extending over some 25 years". He tells us to "try it and see" and there are some short instructions in the appendix of the book on how to practice developing 'deliberate precall' skills using playing cards, and....dare I say it......numbers. ;D.

I must admit I have not yet tried his methods, because when I first read the book it was about the time I also read 'Psychic Warrior' (also pub 1996), which sparked my interest in learning about RV... but when I have finished the book I most definitely will, as he may throw some additional light on things.

It is interesting that when speaking of reports of the experiences of others when using his instructions, he says "That it (precall) constitutes an exercise of considerable mental delicacy 'initially' is totally agreed. That it becomes rapidly easier and more automatic, seems also general. But, as with other high concentration skills like golf or ballet, even a few days of lapsed training will set you back considerably. Nevertheless competence can then be reattained more quickly than initially, and ever more readily with each new return"

Sound familiar? Well...however each of us may believe psi works, it seems that there is hope for those of us who are inconsistent in our RV practice ;D ;D

Definitely worth a read.

BTW...Hope you have (or have had...I'm not sure when it is) a great time at the conference, and please tell us how it went and what was discussed :).

Cheers for now,
Glyn
 

waterway

Member
Has anyone here read Atwater's book "Future Time", and if so, how does it contribute to this understanding of Future Memory being discussed here?

???
 

Glyn

New Member
Has anyone here read Atwater's book "Future Time", and if so, how does it contribute to this understanding of Future Memory being discussed here?

Hi Waterway,

By coincidence I have a copy of PMH Atwater's "Future Memory" sitting next to me on the couch right now :). I bought it some time ago, but somehow never got round to reading it thoroughly, so thanks for that...your 'precall' is good. LOL!

I will start it today. Oh so much to read, so little time ;).

For those interested in 'future memory', 'precall', 'anti-memory', 'preliving' or whatever anyone may call it...I thoroughly recommend Sean O'Donnell's book. It has as much impact as Dunne's, and his ideas on time are far easier to understand.

From O'Donnell's point of view....If you can imagine that there is no time, as we have come to think of it, and that all that was, is, and will be, exists all at once... and it is the way our minds perceive things that gives us the impression of past and future. Our consciousness being like a moving slit (or aperture or window I guess) that illuminates our surroundings as we go through our lives. (Actually that is quite a popular way of thinking these days).

He gives a diagram that shows our consciousness (the present) as being in a valley between two hills. On the left is the past, the lines, containing 'peaks' of memorable experience are quite solid. Our past is more solid to us obviously, but becomes less so the further back in time our memory of events have to reach; which all of us with bad memories will attest to :). To the right is the hill of the future. The lines and peaks of this hill are much much more vague.

I can't help thinking that to use precall it may help to have a good recall memory, if you see what I mean.

Well Dr O'Donnell maintains we can learn to do it (precall), and get better at it the more we practice. (So when the RV teachers say practice, practice, practice, they have obviously made the same observation; however they may think it works :)).

His experiments make for fascinating reading, and he reports being able to precall playing cards, car number plates and has had success at the roulette table, and he gets better at it the more he practices. He gives instruction on how others can try his methods.

Interestingly, he reports, like others have, that as soon as he started to bet more than a small amount the ability would let him down. He also reports that an observer can also influence the outcome, especially an unsympathetic one (again that has come up in the research of others), and he mentions the need for praise and encouragement if there are observers as he has noticed a 'childlike' aspect to whatever part of the mind is being used in precall.........and generally he has experienced much better results working on his own.

He likens this affect (precall ability letting him down when the stakes are high), to the difference in mental state between walking confidently along a narrow wooden plank on the ground and then doing the same thing high up in the air.. :eek:. For the ordinary person to be able to perform a task to the same standard without turmoil at a subconscious level interfering with concentration would be extremely hard I should think.

Ordinary everyday recall would be hard enough.... Try visualising your own front room while perched precariously on one leg on a high-wire (I'm not speaking from experience BTW, just trying to put myself in that position mentally... ;D).

Do read his book, it is brilliant! I wonder what he doing now...how good he got 'at it'?

I will get back when I have finished PMH Atwater's book. From a quick flick through it seems as she is approaching things from a similar direction as she says that "'preliving' the future has less to do with 'psychic' forms of furturistic awareness than it does with the development of the higher brain". By this I assume she means that this is an ability that can be deliberately developed (as O'Donnell found). She mentions expanding in consciousness, which has slightly 'New Agey' tones, but it is the same thing at the root. It appears to be a mental ability after all. Should be a good read.

Oooh one more thing. Dr O'Donnell reports, and this is fascinating.....that when he swapped from using precall to predict what next playing card he would see, to trying to use it to predict what next car registration he would see...he noticed a fall off in ability, and he had to start again (practice with car registrations). In other words it seems that if a person is good at one form of psi then it does not mean that they will be good at all. He did find however that after a while he found it easier to swap between one and the other as the overall ability seemed to rise..which is good news, but down to loads of practice.

Mmm within RV itself that may explain why often it seems that people are better at picking up one sort of impression than another, and that those who seem to be better at RV as a whole seem to be those who practice the most (allowing for natural talent of course, which makes a difference in any human endeavour).

Incidentally, Dr O'Donnell did not have any problem with numbers...as most of his experiments involved the precall of numbers. Seems to be saying some important things for those who want to use precall to win the lottery doesn't it? Practice, practice and more bl...dy practice, while balancing on one leg on a high-wire over a raging torrent and still keeping your cool....and maybe an audience is not a good idea. But that's an entirely different discussion of course ;).

Cheers for now Waterway,
Kind regards,
Glyn
 

waterway

Member
Jinkies! Thanks for the synopsis and the recommendation. That book looks like a keeper.

Quickly, prepare my steed! I'm off to Barnes & Nobles!

hehehe.... ;D I don't really have a steed... I just always wanted to say that! ...life is good...

Whew... gotta switch to decaf. Anyway, that book sounds great. When you have read some of Atwater's book, fill us in on your findings.

Again, thanks.

::)
 

waterway

Member
Hey Glyn,

I think I got too giddy too quickly there.

I am having a hard time finding this book. I mean, its independently published.... and I cannot locate the publisher. The few links I found on the net led no-where.

Can you send me a few clues as to how to contact the publisher/author to get a copy?

Also, have you read any of Bruce Moen's books?
 

Glyn

New Member
Hi Waterway,

I am having a hard time finding this book.  I mean, its independently published.... and I cannot locate the publisher.  The few links I found on the net led no-where.

Can you send me a few clues as to how to contact the publisher/author to get a copy?

Yes, it is by 'PreCall Press' in Galway Ireland so it looks, from the name, as if he published it himself.

It is not on Amazon.com, but I am pleased to say that it is still on Amazon.co.uk, so just enter "Future Memory and Time" in the search-engine there.

ISBN 0-9528409-0-1


Regards,
Glyn
 
Top