Reading mind with RV

Sparkling

New Member
I know CRV is not good protocol for reading mind of human.
But I want to do it with remote viewing.
I want to know why some people have bad relationship, I want to make a diagnosis for human relationship of target person.
And I want to know what kind of action will result in better relationship for the target person.

Do you think these things are possible with RV?
Which book is best one for doing this?
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
What the... oh you guys are cracking me up! Come on you're teasing right.

EI stands for 'emotional impact.' This is referring to the impact on the viewer.

Although at times that data may be shared with someone in the target, the 'impact' categories are talking about the viewer's response not the target. Some viewers for example could be very affected with sadness or revulsion at the killing of a cow for food while others might not blink over it. It isn't about the target except as a reflection; it's about the viewer.

There is no category in CRV for "mind reading" unless you count "the entirety of it" because target acquisition alone, if there is a human tasker anywhere in the chain, MAY start with that. Maybe. :D Stage 4 is generally the concepts and the viewer-impacts and if you are describing a person in your data, you may get data about how they feel or what they are thinking here. (Not that you can't get it anywhere. Or have to here. Just that in armchair theory S4 would be the place for it.)

Back to the original question though:

I know CRV is not good protocol for reading mind of human.
But I want to do it with remote viewing.
Any format for viewing can theoretically bring any data, because it is "free response" so the primary variable is the viewer first, format/method second. But obviously some formats are better designed for some kinds of data than others.

CRV does well with basic physical targets and due to its literal expectation of physical targets -- you are driving for that even at the point of asking for an ideogram, unless you are training yourself to a vastly broader definition for them (I believe viewers can and sometimes should if they're good at it) (so e.g., "spooky" or "lonely" "mass death" could in theory all be ideograms if the viewer works those things in targets regularly for practice like they might 'mountain' or 'manmade').

Usually the mind is going to give physicals to you when you're using CRV as a format (until a viewer is experienced enough that they are willing to let go and get-what-they-get but those experiences usually don't fit in a column very well, but for a few translated pieces, and one could question whether it's truly CRV or the infamous dodge of "went quickly to stage 4.5 and then just viewed").

So since the mind is likely to want to give a viewer physicals, if you had to task them on something nebulous and they are using CRV, best to give a tasker intent that if they do provide physicals they will be in some self-explanatorily-obvious-symbolism. Of course then you have to interpret it like a dream but depending on the viewer sometimes you gotta do that anyway...

I want to know why some people have bad relationship, I want to make a diagnosis for human relationship of target person. And I want to know what kind of action will result in better relationship for the target person.
I don't really see how mind-reading is what you describe.

I generally think if you need data and a radio satellite or a psychologist could do a more dependable job of it, those are probably the routes to go...

But. You have two questions here not one. I think either question could in theory gain "insight from psi." Probably CRV is not ideal for either question but stay within an RV blinding protocol at least and a sort of meditative-prayer approach might work.

However I think the real problem you're likely to have here isn't that it can't be targeted, or that the information can't be acquired, but that the viewer's ability to actually translate it into something useful without giving them so much front- or mid-loading it kills all blinding protocol, is rather unlikely. This is one of the few instances in which I would say that high body-intuitives (who are usually also evidencing psi, but seldom work in an RV protocol) might do better at ferreting this out.

Do you think these things are possible with RV? Which book is best one for doing this?
I don't think there is any book that can teach anything other than a format or history or protocol or philosophy... viewing is an art/skill/sport you gotta go through not around and is all about the individual.

I wouldn't recommend psi as the solution for this question -- I realize counseling is probably out already or you wouldn't be looking to psi, so... perhaps a creative, depth-hypnosis session series of conversation with the person in question (might take some entrainment first with the hypnotist) might be better.

Good luck,
PJ
 

Sparkling

New Member
PJ said:
I don't think there is any book that can teach anything other than a format or history or protocol or philosophy... viewing is an art/skill/sport you gotta go through not around and is all about the individual.
It looks like there is no RV expert who is professional at mind reading and relationship counseling.

So i have just made simple protocol for mind reading and relationship reading.
The part of this protocol is from tarot relationship spread.

Relationship Remote Viewing
target cue : Relationship between A and B
Stage 1
(same as CRV-s1)

Stage 2
(2.1)Relationship situation
describe the sight of relationship situation
describe the hearing of relationship situation
describe the smell of relationship situation
describe the taste of relationship situation
describe the touch of relationship situation
describe the temperature of relationship situation
describe the dimension of relationship situation

(2.2)Reading mind/thought/action of them about current relationship situation
How A is feeling about current situation(Emotion)
What is A's thought about current situation(Thinking)
What is the way A is behaving and responding to current situation outwardly(behavior/attitude)
How B is feeling about current situation(Emotion)
What is B's thought about current situation(Thinking)
What is the way B is behaving and responding to current situation outwardly(behavior/attitude)

Stage 3
Draw relationship situation
(same as CRV-s3)

Stage 3.5
Draw the event that happened in their past lives that give the most biggest impact to current lives' relationship.

Stage 4(modification of CRV-s4)
1. reading sensory data of current relationship situation
2. reading A's Emotion/Thinking/behavior/attitude
3. reading B's Emotion/Thinking/behavior/attitude
4. what is causing bad relationship to them?
5. what is my best action to improve their relationship?
6. what is their best actions to improve their relationship?
7. AOL
8. AOL/s
 

fletch

New Member
I have to agree with PJ and RV to an extent.

Stage 4 is where it's possible to take on the traits of a subject being RV'ed so it is possible to "read" an individual using CRV. Recall what it was first used for if you will. Gathering intelligence. You do have to read someones mind in a war time situation in order to gather intelligence.

Stage 4 could also be used to influence a subject which delves into the area of ethics. Someone inexperienced could get into some deep trouble in stage 4 if not careful. This can be backed up adequately independent of my input by anyone viewing Lyn Buchanan's Remote Influencing recordings or writings.

Whether or not it is possible to be used as a form of relationship counseling, I dunno but doubt it. Compatibility is an opinion and should be left up to the individuals. Trying to influence a person or persons decision independent of their consent is a violation of ethics, at least in my opinion and could be something dangerous to even try for the viewer as well as the receiver.
 

snorble

New Member
PJ said:
EI stands for 'emotional impact.' This is referring to the impact on the viewer.
EI stands for emotional impact, but it is typically the emotional impact of people at the target site. AI is aesthetic impact, and AI is your emotional response to the target.

Some of the manuals say EI is the emotional response of people at the site "or of the viewer", so if you put your emotional response to the site in EI it's not wrong according to The Rules, but whenever I have seen anyone discuss S4, and especially the military guys, they have always said AI is the viewers reponse, and EI is the response of people at the site. If you can include your emotional response in EI then it makes AI redundant, I think.
 

snorble

New Member
Some people are using their flavor of intuitive work for medical applications. I know Lyn and Lori have mentioned these, and people like Dr. Rita Louis do this as well. I don't see any reason why it could not be applied to relationships. Like always, the difficulty is in the details and you would have to figure out how to modify the protocol or add tools to the protocol to get the kind of actionable info you could use. But there's no reason you can't do that work to create something that works.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
As very casual slang, referring to S4 as the mindreading stage to other viewers isn't bad, but saying it in public as if it is a literal truth gives onlookers a rather different impression about RV overall I suspect.

If a viewer is working through descriptives in S2 or S4 and says "big" I consider it physical data; if they say "Wow, big!" I consider it an Aesthetic Impact (AI). If they are working through S4 and say, "sadness" I consider it either emotional or conceptual data (it can apply to an individual or a larger measure); if they are working through S4 and get choked up with sadness themselves I consider it an Emotional Impact (EI). But I had a column for concepts.

Data is one thing, and it merely is what it is no matter what it is (even the most horrific or insightful data can come through coldly sometimes), but the 'impacts' because they affect the viewer themselves, might have effect on the session and on the data that follows. As a result they need to be recognized by the viewer as their own response and processing, separate from the target's data.

This may not agree with the original method, I see from a glance at the manual. It's possible it is my interpretation over time, much like many others doing or training CRV have their own slight variants on how they understand it. But I think I was taught this by someone... but I learned from several people over time so I don't recall where.

The point of a "training methodology" is training the viewer to recognize their own place within the process and data of the viewing... so for me the impact columns, much like AOL and AOL-S, are part of that training-about-yourself more than just whether something is square or something is religious or astronomical.

But I always had a column for 'concepts' which is where the EI if it were 'data not experience' of the viewer would go. That is probably a fundamental change and I wonder where I got that. I sent off my documents from '95-98 to someone else in '98 so I don't have them for ref anymore. (Learning about other formats and related stuff happened after '02 so are a different category for me.)

IMO only then:

The data attribute in the target which the viewer is responding to is usually physical/event in nature for AI, which is why it more commonly comes in stage 2 and is the jumping-off point for stage 3 sketching (because the 'bandwidth of info' about 'physical' {sketchable} data has just expanded); and conceptual for EI, which is why it usually comes in stage 4 when concepts are covered (although both can occur anywhere and are notated).

I should caveat this entire post and the previous with the note that I consider every viewer and session to be sovereign. RV is a science-based protocol placed upon free response psychic work, not a training format for how to write things down on paper -- a pre-designed formal "method" or format for the data can be one part of an RV protocol, if desired, but is not all of it. Like anything else it is used or not used by a given viewer based on what works for them.

And, I suppose, taught/trained to others based on what works for the trainer.

All the above was specific to CRV or my version of it, which I only realized was slightly mutant on this point just now. Paul would probably agree with the manual, just a wild guess, he's the one I'd consider the swann-based-expert-on-official-CRV.

If I had to label a walk-the-talk person in CRV I'd go to Daz Smith instead at this point because he is out there using it publicly and in apps to the degree he can.

That's one methodology approach to RV. There are other people in RV, from McMoneagle and Swann who are legends (neither of which used CRV for most their work), to newer people who just make up their own way, and that is ok too. If there is any art/skill that ought to be "results-based" for evaluating how to go about it -- and the individual viewer is 100% part of it, so like perfume it may vary with body chemistry, so to speak! -- it should be that way for RV.

***

As far as making up your own method for a given thing: the only test is results, for a given viewer, for a given task type, of any method.

As far as the likelihood of success of a new viewer coming accurately by the interpretive detail of data requested here (regardless of their method) I consider it incredibly unlikely -- and if it occurs, likely to be an issue of the fact the context here is that the viewer is not remotely blind to the target and has their own experience and emotion with the person in question.

Like many things in RV, the problem is not picking up psi data, the problem is all the other BS that can end up in sessions -- nearly a given in this context -- and the bigger problem is accurately interpreting, evaluating, analyzing, the results that you get, which in the case of "nebulously non-physical data" is... more complex.

What is theoretically possible from the armchair is not practically likely in the real world of training seminars for quick expertise. Which is why I suggested a body intuitive or hypnotist (if not a psychologist) for the target person to find their own insight. As opposed to the viewer, close to them, doing beginner's RV target-informed then interpreting their results and then telling the subject they have a plan of action for them based on "remote viewing" data.

Actually this sounds a great deal like what DOES happen in the field for a couple decades now and it's not a good thing...

***

If performed in the context the poster asked, there would be zero blinding protocol, the viewer would have a profound secondary relationship with the target as interference, the viewer is intending to use the interpreted data to give the target personal guidance, and without blinding you might call it viewing as slang but it's wholly out of protocol so not 'remote viewing.'

I realize the person asking only asked about methodology (CRV as-it-is for the goal) but if you tell a person how to build a house it helps to have some talk with them about things like foundations, too, or the end result is a problem.

And about expectations, too, because no quick learning is going to qualify a person to get, interpret, and apply as advice much of anything, let alone something that may affect the psychology of another human being, especially one who given the question context is probably already in some emotional pain.

There's a degree of compassionate responsibility here, for the larger context, for his application and result, and for the associated reputation and definition of RV. Sadly, all these heavy topics are kind of part of discussing it publicly for me.

I wouldn't even mention them in private discussion, since my viewer friends would already be highly aware of the issues without me doing so but the average 'general public' reader or new-to-RV reader may not be.

Hmmmn maybe that just means that I consider being so boring my obligation. ::) :D

Best,
PJ
 

fletch

New Member
PJ... Why haven't you written several books yet? That's not sarcasm since I do enjoy reading your thoughts on subjects.

At the risk of sounding as if I'm blowing my own horn I've practiced CRV [Morehouse], TRV [Dames] and SRV[Brown] to the point of my definition of proficiency. My definition of proficiency is I'm right at least 70% of the time when using one of the methods.

Currently I'm working on ARV [Marty].

Again that isn't an attempt to sound as if I'm blowing my own horn. I'm not. I know for fact I'm not superior to anyone reading my reply.

Even though I have studied more than one technique, nothing I have read leads me to believe anyone is right 100% of the time regardless of their technique.

As far as RV'ing a couple goes there are things that stick out to me and as PJ alluded to, someone new to RV'ing may not be aware of some of them.

1.] No matter how good you are you're only going to be right a portion of the time. You're never 100%.

2.] Regardless of how you put it into words, it is entirely possible to "read" someones mind when RV'ing them. It can be totally unintentional as well.

3.] It is entirely possible to be "taken over" by whomever you're reading and again, no intention is required. Again it doesn't matter what label you put on it you have to read someones mind at some point to figure out their intentions. This "reading" is a two way street.

#3 has not happened to me, at least not to my knowledge anyway. Buchanan stated it happened to him and even though it's entirely my decision, I have no reason to doubt him.

I don't say that to frighten anyone away from exploring RV'ing, I say that to make them aware of it possibly happening.

To digress a bit, in order to work with couples, you have to know their intentions... To know their intentions using RV, you have to ready their minds. They may be perfectly nice people, but they're not you. Imho, it's not worth the risk.

One other thing I'm taking into consideration is relative to finding missing people or possibly objects. You can only see where they are at the moment. It's difficult to see where they may be an hour from now.

The same could be the problem with couples. Person A simply adores person B because person B is doing everything that makes person A happy. If person B decides to do things that make them happy, person A may have a different outlook.

Can this be seen ahead of time with RV'ing? Not with 100% accuracy. Better info as well as more reliable info could be had by simply asking the couple which is what a therapist would do. Would the therapist get the truth? Not always. But RV doesn't get the truth all of the time either.

What is the OP's end goal or ulterior motive? Does he want to predict the outcome for couples? Does he want to try and save a couples marriage? I dunno, he didn't say and it really doesn't matter. What I do know is imho he would have limited success using RV. He imho would have much better success simply by asking them the right questions provided he had the proper training.
 

Sparkling

New Member
fletch said:
What is the OP's end goal or ulterior motive? Does he want to predict the outcome for couples? Does he want to try and save a couples marriage?
Yes it can be applied to couples(like when parents are trying to get divorced), family members and friends.

But the original idea comes from company/organization management.
So you are managing your team members, but there is a problem between team members.
They are not trying to say why they are having conflict(or both of them say that its not their fault),
but i want to know who made the problem(mistake) first or who was actually problematic person.
And i want to know whether there is good actions to do.
This is important because if you do something(like scolding) even though you actually do not know the situation well, you will make their relationship worse or no change.
So you are becoming a psychiatrist or relationship counselor that can make a diagnosis for team members' relationship and make harmonious
team, of course, you should do this while doing your own work well.

I think this relationship counseling can also be applied to relationships between groups.
 

fletch

New Member
Sparkling said:
Yes it can be applied to couples(like when parents are trying to get divorced), family members and friends.

But the original idea comes from company/organization management.
So you are managing your team members, but there is a problem between team members.
They are not trying to say why they are having conflict(or both of them say that its not their fault),
but i want to know who made the problem(mistake) first or who was actually problematic person.
And i want to know whether there is good actions to do.
This is important because if you do something(like scolding) even though you actually do not know the situation well, you will make their relationship worse or no change.
So you are becoming a psychiatrist or relationship counselor that can make a diagnosis for team members' relationship and make harmonious
team, of course, you should do this while doing your own work well.

I think this relationship counseling can also be applied to relationships between groups.
I'm not trained to be a counselor so I'm probably not qualified to answer any of those questions beyond personal experience.

In any event, no disrespect intended, but my answer remains the same. I may be completely wrong in my line of thinking and you may be into something. I dunno. What I do know comes from a bit of experience and what the experts have stated.

Imho, RV'ing a living, breathing person does come with some risks which I'm not willing to take.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Sparkling said:
But the original idea comes from company/organization management.
So you are managing your team members, but there is a problem between team members.
They are not trying to say why they are having conflict(or both of them say that its not their fault),
but i want to know who made the problem(mistake) first or who was actually problematic person.
And i want to know whether there is good actions to do.
...(excerpted)...
I think this relationship counseling can also be applied to relationships between groups.
On the main RV board on the medical conditions thread which sort of mutated into the ideogram thread which I expanded to the mental tools thread (...), I talked about imaginative meters that I use in jungian-ish meditations which provide information that to some degree is or can be binary but can carry other info too.

I think, and this is NOT REMOTE VIEWING but it could be a combination of existing subconscious info and psi in general, that if you wanted to do this regularly as part of your management toolset (a very interior toolset!), you could probably develop some mental tools for at least part of this.

The issue you're likely to find about two seconds in, and that's if you work out a viable tool and you allow it to work, is that very rarely is anything binary when it comes to the relationship of two people. Using a he-said vs. he-said incident at work as an example; perhaps it is not either individual's fault entirely. Even if one guy was totally in the wrong, you don't know how much or what came before that drove it to that place. Many people are of a personality that they will stoically put up with enormous amounts of abuse of various kinds, and then they finally snap, and then everyone reacts to their snapping like gee whiz you're so unreasonable and unfair to person X, when in fact they've been a miserable victim of person X for a long time. So I would think that you wouldn't just be wanting to look at a singular incident (although you could) but really get a feel for the relationship and situation overall.

Something akin to a creative meter, and this is total symbolism so you have to intrepret it that way, could probably do this. To simplify, maybe I would imagine it like my computer screen, where a flat surface with both width and height, could also have the quality of colors. Down the middle is a line and on the left side is the color of Jack (say green), on the right side is the color of James (say blue). And I can ask my meter questions, imagine 'closing my inner eyes' and it changing to show me the answer, and then look at the result. (You may gut-sense-concept-feel the result more than visually see it, particularly early on before you have really got the thoughtform practiced well.)

So you might say, "show me their relationship" and see both colors intermixed with the other in places. Maybe some of the 'intrusion' of green on blue is in spikes, or maybe the green is intruding more on top (physical or verbal aggression) vs. on the bottom (subtle undermining, quiet reputation harm, etc.) -- and maybe both are present but in different amounts for both sides. It will be up to you to tell your subconscious the information you want to know, and then interpret what it gives you -- calmly, intuitively, without judgment to the degree possible.

You can also imagine that there is a line through the middle horizontally, and each side can answer a question, like a thermometer, with the color rising (and sometimes changing, fading, mixing with other colors, etc.). You can say, what is their integrity in situation X? and see what you get. You can say, what level of fear (or anger, or 'sense of injustice') do they feel about the other guy?

But like I said, you may be surprised by the information you get if you truly allow it. It's likely to be far less binary than you expect in many cases.

The mental tool meter idea could work for your "actions for improvement or resolution" too as long as you have some different paths/actions in mind. You could ask their meter to show you a given thing about the men and then you could say, "Now if I did action X / imposed condition Y / (whatever) on them, after say two weeks, what would the relationship "probably" look like then?" And see how it changes. Better? Worse? One nearly vanishes, maybe suggesting they would be beat-down or leave their job?

I mention the latter to example that such a meter can provide almost endless free-response information if you are willing to allow your subconscious to use symbology and you're open to interpreting it as such -- and not just with your head, but with your gut and heart because the information is not logical-cerebral in offer and so is not meant to be interpreted solely that way, either. For example maybe something occurred and something was 'black'. Your head might say negative, bad, darkness. But maybe it means "hidden" or even "empty" or perhaps "oblivious or ignorant." You have to let the same parts of you that provide the symbology, help you interpret it, too.

Again, because you are informed of the target detail in order to make these questions and interpretations possible, it cannot be done within a remote viewing protocol for the blinding element. But that doesn't mean that psi cannot help you work on "your own understanding" about it.

I think it's relevant to consider this about you, and your understanding and enlightenment for the situation. And not about them. They are actually the secondary, not primary, focus here. If you see what I mean.

Good luck,
PJ
 

ScientistGeorge

New Member
About ten years ago a man asked me to do some reverse speech anaysis to find out if he was going to be successful in marrying a woman that he was dating. I did the reverse speech analysis on a discussion that I had with him on that subject. The reversals surprised me. They indicated that yes they would marry.
The reversals were correct. They been married for most of that decade now. This was obviously predictive of the relationship dynamic.


Sparkling said:
I know CRV is not good protocol for reading mind of human.
But I want to do it with remote viewing.
I want to know why some people have bad relationship, I want to make a diagnosis for human relationship of target person.
And I want to know what kind of action will result in better relationship for the target person.

Do you think these things are possible with RV?
Which book is best one for doing this?
 
Top