Hello to everyone!

mountainbomb

New Member
Just wanted to drop in and say hi! I'm an absolute beginner to Remote viewing, just finished the 1st DVD of Ed Dames and have been pretty mindblown/scared shitless/going through identity crisis for the past 48 hours after what I judge to be all hits (5 out of 6 RVs, at worst) as far as gestalts are concerned. Looking to work through it as my foundation then explore Farsight Institute, Joseph Mcmoneagle, Silva and David Morehouse. Hope that I can gain courage from the community to brave the unknown. Always have been afraid of stuff like this, seeing as my imagination can get pretty fucked up sometimes.

But I really, deep in my heart, want to know truth. I hope this is the way to go. Hope to learn about who we are and what we're here for, and maybe help a friend or two once I've figured it all out myself!
 

mscir

Member
Are there any additional steps, or are any of the steps handled differently, that you found useful/productive and worth learning?
 

snorble

New Member
CRV itself is not completely standard. Generally, people do S1 through S6 of the entire site, then they might re-task on some aspect in another session. Some people do a lot of spontaneous re-tasking and investigate whatever is interesting to them within a single session. Some people do S1, then do several S2's and S3's on each of the gestalts they got in S1. Some people use emanations in S5, others use mind maps.

TRV seems more similar to the folks who do separate S2 and/or S3 on each gestalt they get in S1. Personally, I like that kind of approach where you explicitly describe several distinct aspects. I actually like this part of TRV over CRV, because in TRV the distinct things remain unknown, whereas if you are doing S2-S3 on the gestalts you got in S1, it is harder to avoid AOL. Every time I get "natural" in S1, I start describing a field with dirt and grass and a blue sky in S2/S3 :)

The thing about CRV that I have struggled with sometimes, is that my results feel very generic, or I get off into the weeds with AOL after AOL. I have colors and textures and smells and rough sketches, and maybe those are in the target, or maybe they are nearby just outside the edge of the picture. I am always super impressed when people like Daz latch onto some aspect of the target and start describing that thing, then describe another thing, then describe the relationship between those two things. I find that hard to do in CRV for myself. I am sure it comes with experience, but when I am listing a bunch of perceptions, I find it hard to put any of it together without jumping into analysis. I end up with either very generic data, or major AOL problems.

In TRV you separate out a handful of the most important aspects of the target early on, and then you do S2-S4 work on each of those aspects separately. Those separate things remain unknown, which is important. Then after you have completed several S4's for each of the distinct things, you bring together the data you have collected on the different aspects, and can start to put it together. For my mind at least, declaring that there are a few unknown distinct things up front helps keep analysis at bay. Instead of going into S2 saying, "I need an S2 on land, water, and lifeform", in TRV I would say, "I need an S2 on X, A, and B", where X is the defined as the most important aspect, then A, B, C and so on are the next most important aspects. Organizing the session this way helps keep you blind farther into the session.

In TRV, it seems more clearly emphasized that the early stages are not used in analysis, and the only purpose of the early stages is establishing site contact. For example, the ideograms are not required to be decoded, and in some stages you stop after you get 3/4ths of a page of data. CRV people stress the same thing, that the purpose of early stages is only to establish site contact. But in CRV it is easy to forget that. The protocol itself lets you go on and on endlessly if you want. In TRV, the rules serve as a reminder, saying, "you are done, move to the next stage".

TRV might be better at technical targets, where you need to identify several components and then determine the relationship between those components. And it is probably detrimental to other targets where the relationship between several distinct things is not critical to the target.

In the end, these are all tools, a way to apply psi abilities in some controlled way. I am still trying to figure out what works best for me, but the idea of picking and choosing different tools from different protocols is appealing. I saw the TRV DVDs years ago, and dismissed it because the DVDs did not seem nearly detailed enough, and because of Ed's reputation in the past. After reading Brett's book, I realize that TRV is really a very good protocol, and it is probably better suited to some types of targets than CRV. I shouldn't have let Ed's past reputation get in the way so many years ago.

There are a lot of rules in TRV that seem pretty arbitrary, and I doubt they have any bearing on the results. Like you are supposed to never repeat the same target ID number, with the idea that it will confuse your subconscious, or that the target ID must be written on something more physical and permanent, and you can only take a break after certain stages have been completed. I think all of this is silly. I don't even remember most of them, because as I read them I dismiss them pretty quickly. All that is happening is you are listening to your subconscious give you perceptions, tapping into some unknown intuitive ability we apparently have. There might be some point to it when you are first learning, but after you have some experience and figure out what works for you, you have some idea of when the rules apply and when you can do your own thing. I think of it like this. In the military they send you to boot camp, break you down, then build you back up. There are lots of rules and routines you follow. But look at a guy who is in an elite special forces unit. That guy knows what he is doing. If he doesn't tuck in his bed sheets the proper way he learned in boot camp, that will not have any effect on his ability to hunt down terrorists.

For me, I like the idea of using the blind targeting of distinct sub-aspects of the target, and trying to see how that could be made to work in a CRV session.
 

mscir

Member
Hello mountainbomb (interesting name).
I think you'll feel at home here pretty quickly, there are some very experienced, very sincere people here. You sound like you got off to a great start right out of the gate. I've had spontaneous psi stuff happen scattered over my entire life, the earliest one I can remember was about 10 yrs old. You sound like you have have some stories of your own! I'm here because I want to learn to do it "on demand". I had some initial success that was really fun, now I just have to put in the practice. Anyway I just wanted to say welcome, and I bet you won't be disappointed.
 

mscir

Member
Hello snorble,
Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed post, that was very interesting. I will have to practice a lot more before I get to the point of choosing whether to knit some TRV into the process for certain types of targets, based on your explanation I can see how it could be useful.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
I'd direct CRV detail to Daz or Paul Smith not myself at this point, but:

snorble said:
if you are doing S2-S3 on the gestalts you got in S1, it is harder to avoid AOL.
Officially in CRV unless you are in S5 all data stands on its own merits and you are not describing whatever came before in your session. You write it down and let it go. That's considered pretty important.

maybe those are in the target, or maybe they are nearby just outside the edge of the picture.
You need to impress upon your psychology that you are NOT there to describe anything that might be in the feedback or the larger target. That's psychic work. You are there to describe "what is most important and relevant about this target" (as defined by the psychic intent of the tasker and the verbal directive of the task).

when I am listing a bunch of perceptions, I find it hard to put any of it together without jumping into analysis.
The putting-together data is itself data, not something you are expected to come up with to make your data make sense. You get it or you don't. Talent and format and experience are likely the drivers (but who knows really).

One of early RV's biggest issues is lack of closure because people end up with 400 pieces and nothing cohesive. Eventually with the proper focus and practice that should start to resolve. Eventually it should not actually require an expert analyst and eons to pan for gold. The session itself should be relatively obvious in what it is; and then there's the details.

the early stages are not used in analysis
In CRV no stage of the session is used by the viewer for analysis (ignoring S5). Analysis has no part in an RV session in the CRV model*. It is something done wholly separately. *I will caveat that instructors vary in how they teach writing a final summary, if one is done, and in some approaches, a degree of analysis (because one is not including every word of the session so some exclusions and emphasis are being made, and in fact writing the summary may still be viewing) may be involved with that.

the ideograms are not required to be decoded
It's ideal if you can but the point of ideograms in CRV as I understood it (see caveat at top) is not so much to provide yourself data that drives everything after, since you move on immediately after. It is a few things like to assist with establishing target contact and establishing self-contact.

It does often give a nice headsup about the gestalt (e.g. I usually have death come through in ideograms especially if it's violent -- but then my definition of 'gestalt' is inappropriately extended, I simply lack another word) but sometimes all you get is "feels loopy" (LOL) or something that you don't have a translation for or is more about the shape than anything.

An ideogram fundamentally is creating a "witness" for the session -- they are the tea leaves, pendulums, for RV. It is creating a physical anchor.

Many people even using other methods use ideograms for the anchoring-and-allowing process personally -- not for the data.

in some stages you stop after you get 3/4ths of a page of data. CRV people stress the same thing, that the purpose of early stages is only to establish site contact. But in CRV it is easy to forget that. The protocol itself lets you go on and on endlessly if you want. In TRV, the rules serve as a reminder, saying, "you are done, move to the next stage".
Maybe what you need to learn is to recognize when you have about as much as you're going to get for a certain line of inquiry. This is after all a question in RV altogether as well. You're not going to get the data quantity for a field of daisies that you will for a circus. If you do it's likely to be pages of free association not psi.

RV is by definition "free response" and although this primarily refers to the forced choice vs. open tasking schema, the logical extension of that is that aside from general guidelines -- which would absolutely be violated if one had less or more data streaming in -- it should be the free response of the viewer.

I might add: I have seen people chirping about all those pages of S2s. Sometimes what you see in people online are the deformations caused by other elements of viewing. For example self-profiling tends to have some negative effects for some people (not everyone). Math seems easier than psi to many, they put most their emotion in figuring out how well they just did rather than re-living the session experience and eventually they are bragging about tons of data with 99% accuracy but their sessions are just novels of disconnected data points most of which is useless in context. For example they will write 'bright' and then continue with like 16 other words they consider generally meaning that also. It is an ego and intellect issue that focus on the wrong things about viewing can cause. All that really matters is what is most important and relevant.

it is probably detrimental to other targets
In my personal view none of the collection formats are better/worse than others except that
a) some things have elements of process or detail added or removed which may work inconsistently depending on the viewer and most of those have no serious background in research or development, they're just someone's arbitrary idea;
b) every methodology is more ideally suited to one kind of data than another which ought to be obvious;
c) every methodology is likely more suited to some personalities than others, which also ought to be obvious;
d) some methods work better for a person at first than later or vice-versa, and that's usually when people start varying what they are doing to fit their personal preference (e.g. for many people stage 3 and 4.5 become center).

a way to apply psi abilities in some controlled way.
Anything you do amounts to that if you have the intent. It doesn't have to start as someone else's idea or part of a prepackaged plan.

Do recall that (a) CRV was the foundation and (b) it is taught differently by different people. All I notice is that many things you attribute to one method or another I do not attribute to them. As far as what you choose to intentionally do separate data collection upon (e.g. diff gestalts), you can do that on any method technically. In the TDS method you do what my old buddy Toad called "scribbliograms" instead of ideograms and then do S1-S3 three times. To each their own.

I shouldn't have let Ed's past reputation get in the way so many years ago.
I'm not sure where the "past" part happened, heh. Still, most of his more egregious issues are not at all about how he handles S1 or TRNs, for certain, it's way upstream. So I wouldn't stress on the method part. I have known lots of people over the last 20 years who trained in various instances of TRV and who view very well with it. I have never had any bias against the viewers themselves and have worked to ensure they were part of every project I've been part of.

All people are psi and IMO mostly it's a matter of how much damage a given method does a given personality and data type more than how much it 'facilitates' it, since I consider people capable of getting the data without any more facilitation than asking for the info, as adapted by practice of course.

Best,
PJ
 

snorble

New Member
PJ said:
An ideogram fundamentally is creating a "witness" for the session -- they are the tea leaves, pendulums, for RV. It is creating a physical anchor.

Many people even using other methods use ideograms for the anchoring-and-allowing process personally -- not for the data.
What do you mean by witness and anchor?
 
Hello mountain bomb,

Perhaps you'd like to take a look at Aurorabomb. :)

It's a blog which gives an intro to the methods used in TransDimensional Systems (c. 1998-2003). TKR has a link to it in the side bar:
http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/misc/TDS-methods.pdf

The method is being taught again by John Vivanco in Right Hemispheric. He was a top viewer and manager in TDS. He has given courses recently in Santa Cruz, CA but is based in San Diego.
http://righthemispheric.com/

This was the method used by one of the most successful early RV companies. TDS had several clients, paid viewers and also offered extensive training. Right Hemispheric is replicating some of that.

Jon

P.S. Palyne wrote:
"In the TDS method you do what my old buddy Toad called "scribbliograms" instead of ideograms and then do S1-S3 three times. To each their own."
I don't know who Toad is but in TDS we called them ideograms, which is what they were. We also did not do the first three stages that they do in CRV. We began with what we called scans - we usually did 3 of them at the beginning of the session. (But one could do 4 or even more if one wanted.) It was thought that each scan would focus on a different aspect of the objective/target - and experience bore that out. The scans differ from the 3 stages in CRV. Pru developed the TDRV method because she was very dissatisfied with - and her students were failing with - the CRV-derived method she had been taught - SRV (so-called Scientific Remote Viewing).
 
Jon,

Can you elaborate on "her students were failing with - the CRV-derived method she had been taught"?

I have always thought that you can work with pretty much any method and achieve success. Do you have any insight as to what about SRV was not "working" or leading students to "fail"? Perhaps there is a broader lesson there.

RVT
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Jon K said:
{PJ wrote: "In the TDS method you do what my old buddy Toad called "scribbliograms" instead of ideograms and then do S1-S3 three times. To each their own."
I don't know who Toad is but in TDS we called them ideograms, which is what they were.
The term was a joke you know. He was making fun of his own ideograms, I adopted the word as it was described to me once by Pru as "a giant scribble" which I found hilarious (I liked 'em. My ids are often pictographic which worked well for that format.)

You can assign any name to them, and they may have more relationship to Warcollier's stuff than traditional RV stuff, but they are not made-as/used-as ideograms as the term is used to define a specific practice in RV-Psi collection formats -- there are some concepts involved which are part of the definition.

Frankly I think it would be freakin' helpful if everyone who learns a method then decides to change it their own way would at least make up their own terms for their own things, it just makes it impossible for decent clarity of conversation otherwise especially for new people.

We also did not do the first three stages that they do in CRV. We began with what we called scans - we usually did 3 of them at the beginning of the session. (But one could do 4 or even more if one wanted.)
Well I took the training and did half a dozen sessions some with monitoring and it looked a hell of a lot like doing S1-S3, three times, to me. I grant it's been over a decade and my memory's a little fuzzy but still. That you have your own name for it is I suppose good but then again it's so similar to "just doing S1-S3 about three times" that this then becomes more confusing instead of less.

Pru developed the TDRV method because she was very dissatisfied with - and her students were failing with - the CRV-derived method she had been taught - SRV (so-called Scientific Remote Viewing).
To be clearer to new people, it was derived from SRV (Courtney Brown, who was her trainer and she worked eventually as leader in his group for some time) which was derived from TRV (Ed Dames, who was Courtney's trainer) which was derived from CRV (Ingo Swann), but even TRV is/was not taught to fully match what Ingo was teaching and RV methods tend to get a lot more like a blurry-crooked photocopy with every generation down.

In my view someday this will all seem quite amusing. Collection formats do have better or worse but observationally most of their results for people new to them (even if experienced with viewing) are more about their faith in the teacher or someone in the group (rather the way a shift in diet always makes a person feel better so they're sure it's the answer). And of course if tasking let alone analysis is kind of built-in or managed by the person in charge, then it all becomes one system. That can have a lot of positives. And negatives at times.

I'm glad to see a new group in the field, though it's composed of some folks from older days. Although at the time Pru's descriptions of in-person training put it out of blinding protocol, viewing in the wildcard approach certainly required it, and I admired that, no other source of training in the field at the time supported that.

Wherever she is in the world, I hope she is doing well. I am pretty sure much of her old team is under the impression that I am some evil intelligence underlord -- tasking with overlay is all I can guess, since if I am I haven't seen it yet -- so I won't approach the group but it won't be for lack of support, for what it's worth. I welcome you to put any announcements or papers or links about it here of course. Not like you need my permission, but you know.

PJ
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
snorble said:
What do you mean by witness and anchor?
Anchor I just mean as a personal reference, like a centering, grounding, focus of attention.

Witness: the term comes from dowsing:
As a dowsing aid, many dowsers use a witness. A witness is a drop of blood, a piece of hair, a drop of oil, a drop of pure water, a piece of clothing or anything that will identify the target.
However the term has a larger concept use throughout psychic functioning which simply means to create a "physical" anything that is given the "intent" to be one with the target. A task number especially if written/printed on something physical can function as this. It is a way of replicating the seemingly "non-local" energy into your "local" environment. Likely not necessary but often used and might not hurt.

PJ
 
RVT wrote:
Can you elaborate on "her students were failing with - the CRV-derived method she had been taught"?

I have always thought that you can work with pretty much any method and achieve success. Do you have any insight as to what about SRV was not "working" or leading students to "fail"? Perhaps there is a broader lesson there.
I agree that "you can work with pretty much any method and achieve success". I would add: "some success; what that is and how much will depend on many factors."

I checked and don't appear to have notes on what Pru said - I heard it from her first hand (c. 2002). She was very clear that students she was teaching after leaving Farsight (1998) were not doing well and it was reducing her to tears. She did exaggerate at times but she would not have gone to such lengths to create a substantially different method than SRV unless she felt it was necessary to do so. I can't recall that she provided any details about why the SRV method was failing her students. Her dismay did not have anything to do with the way the SRV method was applied leading up to Hale-Bopp, which led to her leaving Farsight. It was the method itself she was referencing.

Jon
 
Top