Must all RV data be from the viewer's experience?

Benton

New Member
Staff member
We started talking about this on another thread and Daz suggested we give the topic its own home... so here it is.

The question was posed as to whether we can get any info from a target that is NOT from our own past experience. Can we know anything that is NOT experienced?

It depends on what you mean by "know" and "anything". Does your head hurt yet.... ? :p

I think we can. I think data pieces from a target arrive in our mind as data, but we connect that data to our past experience when we give it a name. I know I am splitting hairs here, but I think its important. Please correct my confusion.

Data is a visual shape, (recall Sinclair or Warcollier's books) and those shapes, or the idea or word or symbol we get as data is its own thing. Those things are not defined until we name them, and in naming them, we suddenly attach our experiences to them. The viewer then paints them over with their own history.

I also think that out there in The Matrix (and I am only using that term because I can't remember how to spell Askaskic or Ashatic or whatever that record thingy is... ) the event exists and it is a clump of target truths that are connected and associated in The Matrix because they were an event. Now, they don't have meaning or connections except because they are connected by the actual event. So we use intent to find pieces of the event, such as shapes, ideas, feelings, words, that are connected ONLY by the event. I think that is why we use intent and NOT association to get data. We have to avoid "naming" those data pieces because is doing so, we have then changed the focus from the event to our memory and that gets us off on overlay.
 

dann

New Member
Remote viewers are reporters. Consider any new experience. What is its raw data like? Your first visit to the Grand Canyon for instance. There are cascades of experiences happening internally that are largely non-verbal, non-language based. There's the effect of vast distances on your depth perception, there's the degree of dryness in the air and how that feels on your nasal passages, there are shades of color that you don't have names for, there's the way the sun burns the back of your neck and the after-taste of the taco you had for lunch -- the list goes on. Most of this becomes the mind-body state that gets associated with your memory of Grand Canyon. How would you report all of this, how much is relevant, who is the audience ...

Now imagine that you've never been to the Grand Canyon and it is the target of a RV session. All of the issues mentioned above are still there, except that now there is no normal sensory input, just the ineffable extra-sensory experiences. As RVers, we know that extra-sensory experiences are real. But without some internal process awareness we don't stop to think about how we turn those into words and pictures that others can relate to. Communication of experiences requires analogies, metaphors, likenesses, images.

If you know how to Be-Here-Now in your current experience, all "data" is absolutely brand new. Your ability to report this to someone depends on communication skills that draw on your own memory but also your audience's memory. And it involves capturing familiar points of reference between the two of you for conveying what's familiar. It also involves alluding to novelty and strangeness -- conveying the unfamiliar -- if your goal is to evoke the way in which your data is new and unique, differentiating it from a background of non-meaning.

It does come down to the meaning of "meaning" and "knowing" and "thing" and "event". We can call it "data" in hopes that science can sort it all out and tell us how it works, but I think there's more art in it than science.

With RV reporting there is also the issue of avoiding conclusions because they call on us to end the reporting and find the Truth in our data, which usually creates a misleading overlay. So our relationship to Meaning and Truth, while in a state of Remote Viewing has got to remain artistic.
 

Mycroft

Active Member
In my experience as well as those I have tasked, if the signal is appropriated almost anything can be learned about the target. Rarely, is the object named if the individual is not familiar with it.

Taking a queue from some of the reading I have done to familiarize myself with as many features, objects, etc as possible, my computer background changes ever five minutes. The pictures are randomly chosen from a pool of over 3500 pictures from National Geographic which I can readily access the name if I don't know it or haven't seen it, as you can imagine this dramatically expands your horizon of knowledge, especially if you take the time to research the more exceptional images.

To answer what I believe is your larger question. Yes, all information is contained in the matrix. Using an object as a focal point you can ask an object what it is or what it does. If you see a door ask it where it goes. If however you have not yet experienced where the door leads, you might get something very symbolic but understandable to your psychic.

A caveat to this experience but not the only one, I recently Remote Viewed a target that was set in a future time, (Marv is famous for these, but it wasn't his in this case) and my screen turned blue as space, nothing, so I made an inquiry of the void 'why is this?'. A snippet of the session follows, and yes I named primary features in the feedback.

a luminous being sitting in a blue chair, the scene dissolved into deep space
no response to inquiry
deep inky blue again [Inquiry was made at this point and the response follows]
I was in the wrong time frame [a logical response since I assumed the object existed]

The matrix is interactive, Shaman have known this for at least 26,000 years.

Mycroft
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
I think the question is the problem here.

Of course all RV data MUST be from the viewer's experience as we only have a finite vocabulary with which to express ourselves; anything falling beyond the parameters of what we are able to express will naturally be impossible to convey.

At the same time I believe that we have access to all forms, shapes, archetypes and ideas when viewing and that at bass level we experience them exactly for what they are. Trouble comes when the filter of linguistic labelling or concept designation is applied.

You may as well ask whether Chinaman who speaks no English can experience 'a day at the seaside'. Put him in a deckchair with an ice cream in his hand looking out across the sea and leave him for a few hours and then ask him to describe the experience to your non-Chinese speaking self. He'll have trouble. His 'data' will make no sense. He was there...he's just got no way of communicating his impressions.

And yet, clearly, he has experienced a day at the seaside. We viewers are that Chinaman, sunning ourselves amidst a scene the description of which often lies completely beyond our capabilities.

Marv :)
 

Mycroft

Active Member
Marv said:
We viewers are that Chinaman, sunning ourselves amidst a scene the description of which often lies completely beyond our capabilities.
Often but not always, I recently tasked someone for the original meaning of a word. They spelled out letter by letter a word to which I could only find a reference to in a single text (ancient at that). The word was only the key that the answers I was receiving were from the correct signal. The meaning I was seeking had been lost in time but assumed to mean something about the vicinity. The word for which I could find only one use was found at the heart of the area, the item itself had not existed for at least 6400 years.

In the second attempt I went into a meditation to try to guide the viewer to the answer I was seeking, when I received the second session there were five words (nouns) in a row that have been recognized by academia to be English synonyms to the ancient word used as the directive, two of the synonyms I was not aware of myself.

I'd have to disagree, English being the most expansive language, I don't think there is anything that cannot be described, if tasked properly. It is the same way that cryptography schemes can be overcome by tasking what the writing means. It can be in any writing, any language using any method of cryptography.

There are no barriers to perception except those we put there ourselves. Oh crap, I'm starting to sound like Daz.. ;)

Mycroft
 

waterway

Member
Marv said:
His 'data' will make no sense. He was there...he's just got no way of communicating his impressions.
The discussion here is very good, thanks to all the folks posting.

I think our Chinaman can communicate his impressions, he just doesn't know what to call them. If the person tasking him can match his info with qualities of the tasked target, then our contextless-man has had a successful RVing session.
 

RedCairo

do you ever dream you're someone else?
I agree that the question is where the problem happens.

I truly believe that I have and do experience things during RV sessions that are absolutely unique to my experience. Pretty regularly even on mundane targets. As well as occasional metaphysical stuff that I'm pretty certain really IS unique in my experience.

In fact I feel this is so pronounced that there is a good deal of experience I cannot convey because I just can't even bring it to the verbal/sketch level to do so. That's sort of a separate subject too about 'passive data' and the diff between doubleblind and post-feedback which I think is huge for these reasons.

But even of what I experience, yes my brain has to have some form of 'model' for something in order to put it into words. However it's like if a tall totally unique alien walked up to us at the grocery tomorrow. Assuming we did not mistake it for our teenage daughter (...you can tell I have one...), we still COULD perceive it. But yes, it WOULD require we use existing information in our brain to say, "The tentatacles are vaguely octopus-ish, and the eye-stalks remind me of chiquata bugs, and..." -- sure, every element we 'noticed' would be 'comparative' to something in our mental database for definition -- but that would not be saying that "we could only perceive what we already knew," that would merely be saying "we could only communicate what we perceive (even if it's novel) with the frameworks we've got for communications, which are based on what we already know".

Which is pretty much what others have said above I guess (I love the chinaman ref -- that used to be a common analogy -- but one I haven't heard in years!). (Someday someone is going to show up and go, "I'm that chinaman. You've been talking about me, yes?")

I have had experiences where I literally could not fully consciously perceive a good % of something, someone, and some place, and I knew even at the time it was because it was just flat out "too novel" -- that I was totally aware on a "lower level" but the top-level where my conscious mind is just couldn't touch it.

They say that babies have to experience things multiple times before their brains can "hold the pattern" -- like it has to wear a neural groove first or something, enough to be recognized -- I think a lot of experience in viewing suffers that 'not having an existing neural groove for this experience' -- not necessarily because the target data is ineffable, just because the way we're getting the information is so new, we have a lifetime of getting info consciously via the body but a much shorter time of getting info consciously 'through the inside'.

If I've been viewing off and on for 13 years think about it, let's say I spent 5 hours a week on it -- which is SO much more than I have by a mile LOL since I have long periods yearly where I'm not viewing -- I still have to break that down. 5 hours a week, 52 weeks a year is 260 hours. Times 13 years is 3380 hours. There's 8760 hours in a year so that means that in 'viewing time' of my "practice at perceiving in that manner and communicating it", I am like 5 months old. Compared to being 43 years old it's no wonder I'm less good at describing things via RV than I am at describing stuff I experience 'in regular life'.


Now, there is a separate but related topic here, which is that a lot of information I get in session literally IS what amounts to "a memory flash" of something that is not THE target, but rather, is ABOUT or LIKE the target. I believe this is part of where the idea that "we only get data we've already experienced" comes from. This is a BIG part of viewing -- the majority for me -- it's just not the 'only' kind of perception I get.

For example on the memory-based stuff, I get a flash of a green metal bridge near my childhood home town. I get a later flash of a green ornate decorative porch railing in the french quarter of new orleans that I saw in a picture. I have a separate flash of a thin walking path, dirt with stones along the sides. It turns out the target is a bridge, it's metal, it's green, but the metal is much much thinner than the other bridge, and the railing is thin like the N.O. railing thing, and it's a footbridge, a real thin one like that path. This is an example of getting data 'like/about' a target that is based on "existing personal experience" rather than merely getting the data directly. (I also got that the architect "loved it" literally.)

Sometimes I think that we get combinations that AVOID what we actually 'know' in favor of giving us something different because it has energetic elements the target does. For example in an old blog post I griped about how I'd gotten this great visual from above of a beach or bay edge, and this long walkway that went over the water, and at both ends there was this square wooden beam docklike area, and a guy walking down it which I suspected was NOT the target, just something 'about' it, but I also had this vague overlay of 'walk on water'.

Turns out it was a wooden porch leading up to a church door, voting going on there. Now despite there were various elements I could put together, the fact is I have *personally experienced* god knows how many wooden porches in my life -- even those leading up to churches! -- so why the heck the whole path across the water and 'walking on water' in the data coming through?! So:

I mused (who really knows) that (a) maybe the walk on water related to the church nature, as well as to the political nature of the voting going on there (having a hero, w-o-w as slang), and (b) for all I know -- god, who knows?! -- maybe the porch was literally built to keep the locals out of the water/mud every time it rained or something. What I'm saying is that MAYBE, when we try to figure out WHY we get the data we do, MAYBE the target has its OWN identity of a sort -- and maybe its "founding intent/reason for being" and its "construction" and its "physical nature" and its "actual usage" as well as its "general relationship to our species" (eg when we get myth/archetypal refs) -- maybe all of these things go into making a 'target' a somewhat larger and deeper identity.

To us, we don't give a damn -- we want to know the "shallow surface details" and don't bother me with the deeper details -- oh except when I need them -- oh except when they matter -- otherwise just tell me what it looks like on the surface to a bipedal mammal in this frequency please -- I wonder if the subconscious self is ever just exasperated LOL!


(A separate annoying question is, 'so which part matters? I can't judge without analysis, but if I don't make a decision and communicate promptly, I will be here 15 minutes detailing everything about a micro-second flash of something that probably has only about .05% to do with the target anyway, and likely sending myself into major aol drive on all the elements completely unrelated. So one actually DOES have to make an 'analytical decision' about 'what matters' during RV -- constantly in fact -- something that for some reason is like the elephant in the living room in this field since we all know you "can't analyze!" during session, but IMO that happens naturally as a result of any communication. Much like there is no such thing IMO as truly "raw data" -- 'door' and 'flat' and 'brown' are IMO no more raw than 'door' as long as they all came to me directly (vs. my mind having to consciously construct 'door' out of the other three, no matter how quickly). Might be I just know 'door' at a level well enough to be at the same perception point as those other things are. I grew up around Sage bushes in southern coastal california, a bit east of the beach in Ojai, and Sage is the only plant I have pointedly picked up in viewing sessions -- not as a smell or name but literally it just comes through like a 'raw data' base, the way 'water' might.)
 

psilentone

New Member
Please don't start making up that sandwich just yet but I have done targets from the perspective of an animal and found it amazing. Its true that it is difficult to describe to others but the feeling is something that forms a memory in the viewer. It is one of those cases where I begin to wonder if all that stuff about the viewer not being the one to say his or her data is accurate is true. I can not describe it well but I still am left with the experience to build upon. The building blocks for seagull telepathy. ;D
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Interesting food for thoughts people.

The question was posed as to whether we can get any info from a target that is NOT from our own past experience. Can we know anything that is NOT experienced?
I'm not sure this is exactly right but close :)

My theory on RV is that data comes in in some format unknown to us - our body and minds combined then try to interpret this data in ways we personally will understand it (everyone of us has differing ways of doing this), This interpretation is done using all the past memories and knowledge from our life.

Sometimes for parts of targets we just have not in our life experienced anything that the mechanism can find a really good match for in our internal library - so it chooses the next best thing - and this I think is where the AOL's form in the CRV and methods Rv processes.
I.e the target is the Eiffel Tower - ive never experience this but I have Blackpool tower, so this gets used as data - a close match.

Targets really foreign to our life experiences seem to generate the worst session data - I for example don't and never have liked cars and all that stuff so engines are very hard for me to get a targets because I have very, very limited life experiences of them. Other targets like the pyramids and Egypt are really easy as I have accumulated many experiences, been inside them, touched them, smelt them - so I usually nail these targets. Now within RV, the feedback process helps in some small way as it helps build a library even with the AOL data.

The best way though is to consciously experience more. Expanding the mental library. I find myself touching surfaces, smelling places more this type of thing trying to expand my sensory library to cover as many variations as I can.

The strange thing for me is that whatever communication process this is going on its clear that I or a part of me is NOT going to the target in any way - if it were it wouldn't need my past impressions/knowledge to tell me what it was I am experiencing it would automatically generate new impressions - this doesn't seem to be the case.

daz
 

RedCairo

do you ever dream you're someone else?
Daz said:
The strange thing for me is that whatever communication process this is going on its clear that I or a part of me is NOT going to the target in any way - if it were it wouldn't need my past impressions/knowledge to tell me what it was I am experiencing it would automatically generate new impressions - this doesn't seem to be the case.
I'm not sure I grok the logic of that though?

I know people who pointedly got information from the future, or the present, or the past, and so they became sure that "this is where information comes from" -- one of those things. But about the only thing I notice is that there doesn't seem to be any singular definition of what/where/why in psychic stuff. Information seems to come from everywhere, everywhen, everyone. Getting it one way, even if it leads to the logical assumption that yes, you're getting data that way that time, doesn't by its nature preclude your ever getting it any other way.

My theory on RV is that data comes in in some format unknown to us - our body and minds combined then try to interpret this data in ways we personally will understand it (everyone of us has differing ways of doing this), This interpretation is done using all the past memories and knowledge from our life.
Haven't you ever just BEEN someone else, somewhere else, someTHING else, something that's totally distinct as an experience? Sure it's true anything we run through our brains is limited by our brains, but then again, our brains can make NEW neural connections as a result of "experience" whether in-person or in-session, and sometimes a novel session experience can probably create that for us.

Beliefs, or even just one's natural inclinations, could probably affect how we get stuff. I know viewers who are exceptional at using feedback as a psi source but if you yank their feedback or, if you reduce their feedback from "I've had this practice target 8 billion times" to "this is the first time I've ever seen it" then you can clearly see the difference in their results. They are still clearly psi, either way, but I think every individual is a little bit different in terms of what comes through better for them, in every way -- seeming source of info, time-spec of info, even how the energy translates for them (eg into visuals vs. concepts), as well as other source info like whether it's from another person vs. just 'exists'.

I sometimes think it's possible that everything is a sort of undifferentiated "Information" and that it's us that does tons of internal conversions even before it gets to the part of the mind we credit with AOL.

The best way though is to consciously experience more. Expanding the mental library. I find myself touching surfaces, smelling places more this type of thing trying to expand my sensory library to cover as many variations as I can.
I agree with this as an important idea. I also think expanding one's practice target pool to the max degree is important too.

In May of '97 I wrote this (surprisingly brief LOL) blog post kind of touching on this subject, of experiencing things in the now and wondering if paying more attention to them would help me perceive such things better in session:

Wide Awake in Dreamland

I might add that I often get tech targets well and I have almost no exposure at all to tech aside from a computer keyboard and a car. I'd be hard pressed to fix a bicycle. But tech elements come through well for me. I suspect maybe some of this is a kind of "natural aptitude". I think if I'd been a boy my dad would have raised me working on everything with him and I'd probably be really good at mechanics and inclined to college for engineering or something. But I got barbies and dad was busy so my future turned out differently. I expect that geneticallly it might be a sort of latent aptitude though. Perhaps not all of our connection with elements at a target is just exposure/experience; perhaps some is also natural inclinations. Just a thought.
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
The strange thing for me is that whatever communication process this is going on its clear that I or a part of me is NOT going to the target in any way - if it were it wouldn't need my past impressions/knowledge to tell me what it was I am experiencing it would automatically generate new impressions - this doesn't seem to be the case.
I think the problem is in the way we experience in a RV session and in our daily life. When we come to a new place, most new information is in colors, smells, sounds etc. But the way we experience is the same like we had done since our childhood. Thats a completely different thing in RV: We experience in a way that is new to us. We are no babies anymore and can't rearrange our neurons in the brain to adapt a new mind-set of the world; that includes how we see or hear. I believe babies can't see or hear, they need to learn it first. At first its all a mish-mash of colors, no shapes. Or a mish-mash of sounds. They learn through trial and error heavily in their first days of lifes how all those puzzle pieces around them fit together.

Back to our RV experiences: Its the same, we can't rely on past experiences. How many sessions a viewer does? And how long is a viewer in this state of sensory perception in his daily life? 1 or maximum 2 hours a day? Then he change back to the other perception world he learned as he was a baby; what he calls 'real world' because he never spent enough time in another state of mind and perception mode. So its not enough time to become a superman with complete PSI power. His brain needs to take shortcuts to reduce the amount of information load to fit the new perception to what was experienced before.

In conclusion: We would need 24 hour rv sessions to adapt to this new form of perception.
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
PJ
I know people who pointedly got information from the future, or the present, or the past, and so they became sure that "this is where information comes from" -- one of those things. But about the only thing I notice is that there doesn't seem to be any singular definition of what/where/why in psychic stuff. Information seems to come from everywhere, everywhen, everyone. Getting it one way, even if it leads to the logical assumption that yes, you're getting data that way that time, doesn't by its nature preclude your ever getting it any other way.
Well they think they are getting the data form the future, present or past but are they really?
I think the psychic data is everywhere at all times. I believe that all knowledge and data about the Eiffel Tower (for example) physically in Paris is also right here in front of my nose and in between my fingers as I type. To access everything about the Eiffel tower, like in RV we don't travel in any form to the Eiffel Tower - we just open ourself up to the information about it.

Haven't you ever just BEEN someone else, somewhere else, someTHING else, something that's totally distinct as an experience?
Yes, but I don't think we go there in any form, become them in any form - we just open up to the knowledge and its there instantaneous. no travel no metamorphosis - its all there all around us waiting to be tapped into.

Back to our RV experiences: Its the same, we can't rely on past experiences. How many sessions a viewer does? And how long is a viewer in this state of sensory perception in his daily life? 1 or maximum 2 hours a day? Then he change back to the other perception world he learned as he was a baby; what he calls 'real world' because he never spent enough time in another state of mind and perception mode. So its not enough time to become a superman with complete PSI power. His brain needs to take shortcuts to reduce the amount of information load to fit the new perception to what was experienced before.

In conclusion: We would need 24 hour rv sessions to adapt to this new form of perception.
This depends on your version or reality - you place the emphasis in your statement on the physical world being more real than others like RV. Thats not how I see things. The non physical is more real than what we can see and touch. Most of us spend hours each day in a world of non physical, where anything and everything is possible and available. In fact if we don't spend time doing this we become very Ill and die. Its called sleep/dreaming.
We don't need 24 hr sessions to adapt to any form of perception and its certainly not new - we spend the major part of our lives in this perception.

“You are not a human being in search of a spiritual experience. You are a spiritual being immersed in a human experience.”
- Teilhard de Chardin


daz
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Daz said:
Well they think they are getting the data form the future, present or past but are they really?
Dunno. Who can say they are or aren't? I think there is not time ("there is no spoon!") and it's all energy. Seth once described time as the human perceptual manner of translating the intensity of energy (eg things with a certain timbre and intensity of energy will seem the near future, near past, or present, depending), that could be so, I suppose. In any case the thing is that from the vantage of human perspective, some information does not become manifestly present until 'the future' so picking that up in session is 'data from the future' no matter how the semantics juggle it.

I think the psychic data is everywhere at all times. I believe that all knowledge and data about the Eiffel Tower (for example) physically in Paris is also right here in front of my nose and in between my fingers as I type. To access everything about the Eiffel tower, like in RV we don't travel in any form to the Eiffel Tower - we just open ourself up to the information about it.
I agree with that, I've described it a little like that myself; that we "fork it out of ourselves". However the fact that "I AM" when viewing and that it comes through us, to get back to the topical focus, doesn't make me think that I cannot perceive something that I have never perceived before; it simply make me agree that my communication will be based on my 'knowns'.

Haven't you ever just BEEN someone else, somewhere else, someTHING else, something that's totally distinct as an experience?
Yes, but I don't think we go there in any form, become them in any form - we just open up to the knowledge and its there instantaneous. no travel no metamorphosis - its all there all around us waiting to be tapped into.
Yeah sure but that doesn't really address the context of the question. We were talking about whether a person can perceive unique data or whether they are limited to only perceiving based on the 'database of their experience'. The detail of "how" we "become someone/something/somewhere" doesn't really address the point which was that, no matter how it happens, no matter what labels we put on it, it does on occasion provide definitely-unique-experience -- no matter how much we must filter that through knowns to communicate it, the "perceptual experience" can be genuinely unique/novel/new to us. (To me, anyway.)

Sometimes for parts of targets we just have not in our life experienced anything that the mechanism can find a really good match for in our internal library - so it chooses the next best thing - and this I think is where the AOL's form in the CRV and methods Rv processes.
I.e the target is the Eiffel Tower - ive never experience this but I have Blackpool tower, so this gets used as data - a close match.
I agree this 'does' happen -- a lot. I was trying to address this specific thing in the previous post when talking about the fuller identity of a target and possibilities for why we may get memory-clips of other things that are not the target itself. You could say that you've never seen the Eiffel Tower so it makes sense you'd get Blackpool. And on that logic alone it does. But there is a larger pool of experience to consider, such as (a) when you DO get something clearly that you have never experienced 'in real life' (after all, we all KNOW of the Eiffel Tower, and some people probably get it whether they've ever been there or not) and (b) When you DON'T get something that you HAVE experienced, repeatedly no less, even when that IS the target. Those two factors make me think that while the logic of the first point sounds reasonable to me, that the second two points make me wonder if that logic really is the answer. If we always got stuff we'd experienced firsthand, and never got stuff we'd not, it would seem more viable as a theory. But it doesn't always work that way, which leads me to suspect that there are reasons for why we get, say, 'data clips from memory' that go deeper than psychic googling.

Katz wrote:
In conclusion: We would need 24 hour rv sessions to adapt to this new form of perception.
Daz wrote:
Most of us spend hours each day in a world of non physical, where anything and everything is possible and available. In fact if we don't spend time doing this we become very Ill and die. Its called sleep/dreaming. We don't need 24 hr sessions to adapt to any form of perception and its certainly not new - we spend the major part of our lives in this perception.
Yes, we do, but we do not have to TRANSLATE that perception through physical-only senses and record it within this beat pattern and frequency--when we try, we get dream logic, and "I was talking to my first grade teacher who was also my boss but looked like a giant chess piece and we were standing in a room that was a closet but also a laundromat while this giant alien of evil plotted our doom." LOL. We don't do so good even at translating dreams sometimes. (Or sometimes we do, as my Red Cairo blog with dreams that are whole linear alternate-world experiences might show.) I think the problem isn't really "the perception from the inside" as it is "the practice of matching that interior-style of perception the exterior-style of communication."

“You are not a human being in search of a spiritual experience. You are a spiritual being immersed in a human experience.” - Teilhard de Chardin
Great quote. Though I think we're symbiotes and our bodies are nature spirits that our focus personalities are merged with ... and our 'identities' are vastly larger and more complex than our focus-personality on a spiritual level as well... I know many people think the body is a shell we're just inhabiting but I see the body as literally part of us (just not 'all' of us, is all -- but as much 'us' as the red-band is of the rainbow or 'full spectrum').

Gotta run, tornado weather coming!

PJ
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
daz said:
This depends on your version or reality - you place the emphasis in your statement on the physical world being more real than others like RV. Thats not how I see things. The non physical is more real than what we can see and touch. Most of us spend hours each day in a world of non physical, where anything and everything is possible and available. In fact if we don't spend time doing this we become very Ill and die. Its called sleep/dreaming.
We don't need 24 hr sessions to adapt to any form of perception and its certainly not new - we spend the major part of our lives in this perception.
The physical is more real to us only because we learned to know its function in our childhood. Maybe we are surrounded by several other perceivable worlds and dimensions, but its a fact we are not able to perceive them as easy like the physical world. Why not? Instead we need hard work to get in a controllable mind-set and perceive in other ways.

Dreaming is not the act of new perception but most of the time a rearrangement of experiences in our daily life which after dreaming become long term memories. Without that we would lose them and die (buffer overflow).
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
I suppose the logic would carry, while we're at it. Is it humanly possible to have a dream that has a unique experience, perception, perspective, etc.? I'd say yes. Is it possible to communicate that? To the degree we can match it, at least at the various component levels, which is kind of what I think you're saying Daz.

I don't think that's a limit on the reception, only on the communication. Does that make sense to you? Do you think the limit is in the 'framing models and communications', or are you saying you don't think the brain can experience/learn new patterns? I'm not sure there is any hard science answer at this point for the psi work so it's probably all a matter of opinion...

I suppose, even if we look at this only from the point of the physical brain and experience, still, I think there is also 'synthesis' which allows the mind to come up with some uniquely new patterns.

And 'learning new things' which ought to apply as much to experience in RV as experience in a dream or experience in 'waking [in this reality] life'.

Fortunately there is both intuition and creative wordplay that might get more across in words than 'the sum of their parts' at times, even of things we have no easy clear model for in our knowns. Or sketches which may be completely incomprehensible to the artist but come out very well compared to the target.

My sketches are always incomprehensible period but that's another story. ::) ;)

PJ

P.S. So earlier today, I'm getting seriously worried about the disgusting green-grey of the sky and the approaching line of red on the weather radar. I ask myself, "OK, you're psychic; if a tornado is going to hit, I damn well expect every part of me to TELL ME in no uncertain terms so I can get out of the way!" I didn't get that, but although I normally shrug off most of this (or I'd live my entire Spring and Fall in a storm shelter...this IS the Ozarks...) I was unusually nervous. My friend comes in to give me something and I tell her I'm nervous and she says, "You guys gotta go with us." My dad has a tiny shelter about six blocks away, so we pile in the car as fast as we can with the three kids and three adults and we're about 50 feet down the road -- like, not EVEN -- when the tornado siren goes off. (That means one is spotted on the ground in the city limits. Although given the arbitrary nature of the guy who flips the siren three doors down from me at the fire station, it means, "A tornado is going to eat you in 25 seconds if you don't move.")

So her husband is the sort who is normally 45 going on 16 you know, sports car he can't afford and driving fast in every unreasonable way and so on, such-a-boy. But as we're driving down the road, he looks in the rear view mirror and sees a big tornado heading RIGHT for us and says, "Wow! Look at that!" -- but he doesn't speed up! As we continue down the road he goes, "There's another one!" and the kids in the car are like, "MAN! Look! Coming right for us!" He is calmly driving down this big empty carless road that even *I* (safe virgo driver that I am) would be doing 4x that speed on without worry. I say, "Geez! You can drive FASTER, you know!" He says, as if this is very important to him, "I don't want to panic." LOL! I realized he was trying so hard NOT to he was overcompensating. So I panicked _for_ him. "Two tornadoes are heading straight for us!!" I snap in disbelief. "This would be a really GOOD time to panic!!" :D

We arrive at my dad's house just as hail starts falling and the tornados are even more clearly visible now and still heading right for us, and we fall out of the car and run into the backyard and get the kids and everyone down in the storm cellar outside. It veered off just before my neighborhood--without touching fully on the ground far as I know--and went off another way. (The last time it did that, last year, it utterly _annihilated_ the tiny town next door. Man, you just gotta see this kind of destruction up close to really grok the scope of it. Like the Grand Canyon or something, pictures can't even touch it. Talk about 'aesthetic impact'.)

But I lived. A little excitement in our early evening!

Which reminds me I once felt that I experienced a tornado during session. That was a rather unique experience. But of course, I completely suck at trying to convey it. ;D
 

Glyn

New Member
:eek: OMG Palyne!!! Wow! Panic?....I would have built a couple of brown brick bungalows!! Thank goodness you all are safe.
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
wow! lots of great comments - Ill try to comment as linear as I can on them.

Dunno. Who can say they are or aren't? I think there is not time ("there is no spoon!") and it's all energy. Seth once described time as the human perceptual manner of translating the intensity of energy (eg things with a certain timbre and intensity of energy will seem the near future, near past, or present, depending), that could be so, I suppose. In any case the thing is that from the vantage of human perspective, some information does not become manifestly present until 'the future' so picking that up in session is 'data from the future' no matter how the semantics juggle it.
Yep this is how aliens allegedly describe time - and in discussions with beings in channelled information/etc they also say the same things to me - that time as we know it is a human construct.

I agree with that, I've described it a little like that myself; that we "fork it out of ourselves". However the fact that "I AM" when viewing and that it comes through us, to get back to the topical focus, doesn't make me think that I cannot perceive something that I have never perceived before; it simply make me agree that my communication will be based on my 'knowns'.
Within RV you can try to receive something that you have never experienced before - but becasue you've never experienced it before only the nearest/closest memories and experiences are used to convey it to you (this may/probably have some missing or incorrect data) - you don't learn and add the new experience to you 'life list' as its not a real experience - you're trying to interpret something unknown within your knowns.

As an example are RV sessions I've touched and tasted a dead body. These rv impressions aren't part of the 'life list' of experiences - the memories of doing this in session aren't like real memories of touching and tasting something. The memories of other touching and tasting event in my life are borrowed to emulate as close as possible what it would be like to touch and taste a dead person.
I couldnt ave a conversation with someone and say - yep ive experienced touching a dead body.

So yes in Rv you can experience new things - but only using borrowed experiences to emulate.
See what I think we have here is the same mechanism that keeps us alive in the day - the mind thousands of times a day creates scenarios in reaction to unfolding events around us, will that person bump into me, will I trip if he does, will that car stop in time, if it doenst what will happen. All the time the mind emulates scenarios showing you imagery inside your head of possible outcomes all based on incoming knowledge and past experiences. I feel the same mechanism is doing RV, creating or emulating the target like a virtual reconstruction in our minds.

But there is a larger pool of experience to consider, such as (a) when you DO get something clearly that you have never experienced 'in real life' (after all, we all KNOW of the Eiffel Tower, and some people probably get it whether they've ever been there or not) and (b) When you DON'T get something that you HAVE experienced, repeatedly no less, even when that IS the target.
Well there are also other elements in play - afer all human are complex machines.

[A] Yes I agree we all know what the Eiffel Tower looks like - myslef from video and pictures - but i dont feel this is enough as these are second hand experiences - detached, there is no sensory data being recorded from my knowledge of this target for me to use if the target actually came up - the only data i have that my mind can pull-up to emulate the target of the Eiffel tower is data of me looking at an image.

Maybe this is just a human trait, fear, blocking or any number of human psychological problems and stigmas? After all still some people feel they will be hurt form viewing bad targets or that you cnat make money from RV/psi - we as humans put all kinds of junk in the way of our minds being able to accomplish anything. I would say in the occurance of that it may be something inward inside of you - but its only a guess.

Yes, we do, but we do not have to TRANSLATE that perception through physical-only senses and record it within this beat pattern and frequency--when we try, we get dream logic, and "I was talking to my first grade teacher who was also my boss but looked like a giant chess piece and we were standing in a room that was a closet but also a laundromat while this giant alien of evil plotted our doom." LOL. We don't do so good even at translating dreams sometimes. (Or sometimes we do, as my Red Cairo blog with dreams that are whole linear alternate-world experiences might show.) I think the problem isn't really "the perception from the inside" as it is "the practice of matching that interior-style of perception the exterior-style of communication."
I'm not talking about any kind of interpretation or translation - the basic fact is we spend over half our lives in a non physical/material world - if we don't we break down and die - the body and mind needs to be disconnected from the physical world - so which is more needed and more real?

Katz :)

Dreaming is not the act of new perception but most of the time a rearrangement of experiences in our daily life which after dreaming become long term memories. Without that we would lose them and die (buffer overflow).
Really - then why do i dream of being chased by dinosaurs in a large forest at night. What part of stored memory making doe this take.
Dreaming and sleep is a needed component of the mind/body to break away form the physical world into what we really are. If it were just to store memories then why do we get very ill and can die if we don't sleep/dream?
Dont get me wrong I'm sure some assimilation of memories takes place, but its a whole lot more than this.

PJ

I don't think that's a limit on the reception, only on the communication. Does that make sense to you? Do you think the limit is in the 'framing models and communications', or are you saying you don't think the brain can experience/learn new patterns? I'm not sure there is any hard science answer at this point for the psi work so it's probably all a matter of opinion...
Yep communication is the problem - using experience to interpret and construct a reality of the target has its problems. There is no limit to reception - just to how we cna build the picture of what's coming in based on our experiences - sometimes.

PJ, OMG great hurricane experiences :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: - we don't get anything like that here in the UK.

all the best guys.

daz
 

SevenSees

Just do it
I think everything has been covered pretty well here, except I wonder why we have to use the term 'chinaman' here. Hm... I think the key may be to learn to speak Chinese - or any and all other languages. The key to any understanding must be communication. There is a constant need and thirst for more knowledge from the conscious mind from the subconscious. Yet, the subconscious, autonomous, independent, strident - yes, even a certain type of forcefulness to the nature of her. The subconscious may be in some collusion with the conscious to make 'progress' or make 'hay' but until we respect both halves as independent, autonomous, co-existing equally as these strange bed partners, the nagging questions will remain.
There is much to gain from understanding our respective egos, and collective ego from this...but here, I think, the real wisdom must come from what it means to be a unique, sovereign. We know that there are two halves of ourselves because we are consciously aware of our hearts beating - knowing we are not 'controlling' that heartbeat. The regulatory system of the subsconscious is something the conscious attempts at times to demonstrate - but after much patience and labor. Still, it is possible for the authoritative, brash, ego-based conscious to 'outwit' the curiously powerful and seemingly omnipotent subconscious. How? Through the same tactics as she uses - self-knowledge, respect of potential, recording, allow storage, intake, JUST BEING...
Will we ever learn to relax our egos so that the waters of wisdom can flow to us from these unseen places - but unimpeded?
 

SevenSees

Just do it
...unimpeded, yes, where was, I...letting that which is in the raw form come through as AN EXPERIENCE independent of ME, could be the place to start. Experiences are what is common in this world of action - and we are not to own any of them - only to - well, experience them. Life offers many contradictions, yet in living on both sides of all issues we turn to vegetables unable to move. So maybe we sit still and experience for a while just the wind blowing on the face there without care of who's wind or who's face, since we know not where the wind or our face comes from...
I ramble, and I apologize, whoever I am. But the experience for me is one of being the wind, the face, the thought of the wind, and the thought of the face, and a different wind, and a different face, and a face unseen, unknown, and dimensions to the wind never thought of until IT ENTERED as I made SUGGESTION of it to MYSELF or other self. Suggesting the most positive outcome of an endeavor stemming from a thought seems important to me. Whether data is from MY experience as a psychic is not important. The truth is self-evident, afterall.
Remember, I offered the lottery numbers as a product of my complete psyche during an attempt at something completely different - that being the mission at hand. Also, at no personal gain was this done - other than for ego-padding, I suppose. Although, that was not my intent I am aware of the fact that motives are illusive and impossible to know. The balance in the mind comes at the risk of receiving that which is asked for, I think. WE think we are ready to know a thing, until we do know, so we must be honest. We must determine what the risk of KNOWING is for us.
 
Top