Gary Langford's RV Teaching Method


Active Member
Staff member
Well, if Mr. Langford stops back by for a peek, he may find interesting the book:

Networks of Meaning, by Christine Hardy, isbn 0275960358


Active Member
Staff member
You know, it is expensive. And I'm the cheapest tightwad in the universe, too. And its small to boot! Its good though, kinda scientific, psychological. Its a scientific explaination of the Web of Indra stuff. It talks about all the ways we percieve, create meaning via connections in properties between "things", how the mind moves accross pathways of shared meaning, and she even has, IIRC, a chapter on parapsychological implications of her scientific findings.

I figure Mr. Langford can afford it though. He's probably seen it. I know we asked a lot from him, I thought I'd give something back. That's just me, always giving away free advice. As long as its free... <g> (See first paragraph for explanation).


New Member
Benton wrote:

First off... in his (Gary Langford)* 10/5/05 post he stated

"1. RV is the sum of many processes that stimulate the brain to provide information about a target. The first notion is to determine what is a target. Are the features of the target really the target, or is the relationship between an object and its surroundings the target. And therein lays the basis for my recent work. The essential feature of a target is its interface with other things. “Things” is used in the most general sense of the word."

* Name added by Rob

Damn, this thread is invaluable and I ended up a while back in hospital with amnesia & a whopper headache! The memory of this particular thread was dormant until I stumbled upon it again. ::)

It all makes so much sense. Imagine being a 2-dimensional being, and trying to get to grips with explaining your perception of a high-rise. There are many facets, different colours.. but being aware of only flat details, the actual structure cannot be understood, let alone be perceived in its actuality.

Now go one step up.. being a 3-dimensional being, trying to perceive objects through psi, and have information provided which is structured around 4, 5 or 6 dimensional extensions.

Finding a specific pane of glass on that high-rise for that 2-d being would be quite difficult, especially considering that there is no perceived consistency to the structure of the object from a 2-dimensional observational perspective. Depth as a value is something never observed, and thus conceptually impossible, so how to find a specific pane without coordinates including depth?

What do we have to orient our awareness of a 3-d object from a 4 or 5 dimensional perspective? Since to us, from a 3-d perspective, time is probably like depth to the above being. Even if our current perception of time is flawed. Yet the RV method is fundamentally operating within an architecture that makes our interpretation (through a 3-d filter) limit the actual perception of reality.

We can view 3-d targets successfully, yippee! Though there are inconsistencies and vagaries in our sessions. No-time? What on Earth is that? ;) For the duration of an object's life, it will 'interface' with its environment in many distinct ways. Even if time, as a particular dimensional extension of the object, is hard to get to grips with.. the mind can easier discriminate between characteristic events and the relative relationship of the target object and its environment, making a complete understanding of time an unnecessary venture to successful RV.

Maybe I'm completely off here, and I'm sure there are people whom are much more in-tune and knowledgeable in these areas.. but just thought I'd write down my humble thoughts.

- Rob


Active Member
Staff member
Yeah, that's it. My emphasis was on Mr. Langford's perceptions that "things" are really just a clump of descriptors, or bits. We get info in bits about the thing. Our normal process is to then take those bits and organize them into some"thing" our ego wants to relate to. But to RV, we put the ego on the back burner and just pull in the qualities we RV of that target, sans our "ego meaning". Dr. Hardy discerns all the ways we know meaning, as relationships between things via shared attributes.

Your ideas about more dimensions being present to these targets is also right on. I think the weird correlations that exist in PSI research is because the variables we are looking at are not directly related, but related to a 3rd variable we are not directly percieving, something that we assume isn't there. In your description, an added dimension. Perhaps our reality is a limited perception of the whole real (uh, duh). Bees can see colors we cannot see, dogs differentiate smells we cannot. But our conscious minds, where we are RVing, have to relate to what we know.... and we can do so most easily in bits of info, in characteristics, where the subconscious mind does not share the same limitations of perception, nor the same lens of meaning, that our ego-mind does.

Or, it could be a coincidence. I can't tell.


I had very good success in RV Tournament this year using an ideogram motion/feeling and first impression method. Later, I encountered the 1986 CI / Langford method document and realized I had been doing basically the same thing, but with ideogram motion/feeling instead of a visual bit.

There's a lot that's good here still, even if the methods described in the 1986 document are now another 15 years behind whatever Langford is currently, privately doing.

It would be great to have a "catch up" with him.