Remote Viewing Human Medical Conditions

jstepp76

New Member
Hello. I am in the process of learning RV. I would like to use it for human anatomy and medical conditions. Do you know of a source of targets that are available so that I can practice blind? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!
 

fletch

New Member
I've used Lyn Buchanan's site quite a bit for targets.

http://www.crviewer.com/targets/targetindex.php
 

mscir

Member
For anatomy you might consider putting together a collection of ideograms for all of the body parts you want to be able to view and then drilling with them.
 

goreh2000

New Member
My idea would be to get a friend to select some medical cases on a compendium website (my first search result brought up this one: http://www.livescience.com/37919-oddest-medical-case-reports.html) and chisel away at them in a random fashion.

Edit- actually by the way that website is set up you could just do a session and open up the page on your own. I might do that myself!
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
i have some examples of medical trials here:http://www.remoteviewed.com/remote-viewing-examples/
 

fletch

New Member
jstepp76 said:
Hello. So you can make an ideogram for pretty much anything?

It's easy enough to make an ideogram and learn what it means with practice. Grab a blank sheet of paper, preferably unlined and a black ink pen.

Do a bit of preparation and seclude yourself where it's relatively quiet and just relax. Push any problems or distractions away GENTLY. Don't fight them. Acknowledge them and move on.

Once you're relaxed, hover your pen just above the paper and say a random descriptive word like water. Before you can think about it which means almost instantly, allow your hand to make whatever squiggle it wants to. A 3 second or so hesitation is a long time and ego can start to interfere so you want to make your ideogram WITHOUT thinking about it.

There's your ideogram for water. It's not necessary to memorize it but you'll get a very similar ideogram for water each time you sense water.

You can say man, woman, child, horse, goat or donkey and may get similar ideograms due to their being life forms that walk the earth.

Mountains and hills will be similar. Flat land another. Tree's another.

Ideograms are kind of hard to explain in text but once you start making them you'll see the difference in them but they don;t change much in what they're trying to describe.

Here's a link that will help you practice them.

http://intuitivespecialists.com/ideogram-practice/

Note: I'm assuming it's permissible to post the link as it isn't an attempt to profit in any fashion nor is there a fee to use the information at the link.
 

Bluefirephoenix

New Member
another approach to doing remote viewing of physical and or energetics can be done with a psychometric focus. Both the ideogram approach and psychometric can be used in the same session since they occur at different points. This approach requires you to go to S4. You need to have good contact with the target. I would have a doll that is adult appearing and squishy. That is it follows the human proportions ( canons for artists) in appearance. I find the squishy one easier to work with than the hard model or an image on paper. I also can do this in the air. Basically what you do is look for areas that feel wierd or not right ... you have a model on your paper just draw an x where something feels off.

Knowledge of human anatomy is helpful. I have very good knowledge that way plus experience with medical conditions so it's pretty easy for me to do this. I would do some studying of basic anatomy so you know where the internal organs are located. Details are not needed and probably will tend to cause AOL if you are not well focused. Go over the model top down. stick your hand or finger and probe inside it. If it doens't feel right mark an x.


If you get AOL blast it off with a P5 and continue. I get kinda violent with AOL's mauhahahahahah

go back and go through the X's describe and draw each one.

If you are making the doll use the memory foam for the interior. I prefer to make my own stuff. I also make it faceless to keep my focus on anatomy. Besides some doll faces are really creepy

You can do the same for animals, bugs, birds, fish, extraterrestrials whatever you want to explore. It might give an interesting twist to " normal " phisiology.

I wonder what those greys Daz talked about one time would think of it. hmmmmm ::)
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
goreh2000 -- that's a fun link!! Thanks for that.

Re: ideograms: I used to think it was all about the ideomotor muscle response until I discovered you can do them in your head. Maybe it depends on the person.

Ideograms were initially used by Warcollier but his approach was a little diff than what we see in CRV. (See book here http://www.espresearch.com/mindtomind/ )

I stretch-misuse the words 'gestalt' and 'archetype' generally, as my definition within those words is pretty expansive, moreso than is dictionary proper I am pretty sure. To me nearly anything can be a gestalt (something more than the sum of its parts -- but not necessarily a shape or form, as initially intended with the German word I think) -- such as 'lonely.'

Most viewers I know, if they use them at all, use them for anything they deal with regularly.

One thing I like about ideograms is that in their own way, they allow you to bring something to the conscious level which often isn't there otherwise. By giving it an identity -- like a label or name -- it seems like we have moved it almost to the verbal part of the brain. Kind of like Helen Keller realizing that a shape someone was drawing in her palm meant the flowy-cold-liquid-stuff (water) and having an epiphany about it, that the shapes in her palm were 'naming' the experiences/things. I've noticed that once my brain does this, it's like it creates a sort of anchor of that given thing, and then after that it can kind of expand.

For example a "multiple layers in motion, independent yet do affect each other" is a whole mouthfull and conceptful but with an ideogram they can be kinda one thing. And once it is, then when this occurs, it seems like this creates a scaffolding upon which the brain can start to hang a lot of other info that it has, but otherwise would simply have no way to convey to you. I consider this pretty critical because when you're working in a doubleblind, until you get to the point that (a) the data is pretty specific and (b) you have the rapport to be willing to go with that and not fight it as possible AOL, then at that point there's a lot of what I call "passive data" that can finally get acknowledged. On its own, it's an ephemeral thing, but once it's part of a 'thing or event or concept' (whatever the Id says, if you're using them that expansively), there is someplace for that data to attach.

For example, an envelope target pool I used to work had a ridiculous amount of death targets in it. This was because it was part of a pool I developed to help people who did crime apps practice on such things, and I added those and other stuff to my own collection. (About qty 800 or so in the pool, so it was big enough I didn't suffer much AOL and that I had once (some eons before) seen the pic wasn't relevant.) I got death so many times I accidentally discovered I had an ideogram for biological-things-death. But once my brain got that, I was able to recognize it, and then recognize a specific 'feel' for it that varied by target. For example, for me, with a sort of loop and then straight jerk up, there is a sort of single-layer sharp feel that usually means a person died very violently or suddenly. There is a 'deeper wider' feeling that means several people died suddenly and violently. When something comes with an emotion of great 'fun' or 'love' it usually means the target has or implies a funeral of some sort. There is a calm feel that means a single person probably died somewhat naturally (no violence). There is a sort of 'flat' feel that means the biological death is probably one or more animals. And one I never figured out, but I described it in session as "like death-LITE," which turned out to be the Dalai Lama during meditation LOL. Maybe he was OBE, ha. I was telling someone about this ideogram recently, by coincidence. Anyway, it's like once you get centered with a word -- even a 'symbol' word -- for something, you can accept that and then your mind can hang other subtle data on it.

I didn't get any ideogram for this, but the multiple layers thing I mentioned above, I more than once have gotten the same data for ocean at the shore, Jupiter's pole aurora, and Saturn's rings. Multiple layers, they move independently, but they do affect one another also. The difference is that the pole feels "ratchety and jaggy" and the beach feels "cycle or spinning" and the rings feel "messy like 'stuff' in pieces all over." The central feel, of multiple layers in motion independently yet affecting each other, is the same though.

There are limited forms and dynamics in our reality, which you discover if you view enough, or if you are one of those tortured souls unfortunate enough to judge other peoples' viewing. No matter how unique something you are describing may be, chances are that description is going to fit at least a few things. In science since the target pool bandwidth is limited this is less problematic because the 'scale' of targets is usually human sized and can be photographed. But viewers who work unlimited pools, where something could be an atomic element or distant moon, an 'event' or animal or human vital organ (none of these would be targets in a managed-bandwidth pool), it's harder because there is no "scale." And when you remove the scale limiter, the ability of many things to share basic shapes or dynamics increases exponentially.

(This reminds me that the old RV Haiku contest
http://firedocs.com/remoteviewing/humor/RVOasisHaikuContest.cfm
was won with:

Only in RV
Can toothpicks and redwood trees
Be the same damn thing


Calabrese wrote that one when she was around.)

But it sort of demonstrates my point about the limits and overlaps of forms and dynamics.

Ideograms, I think if done regularly, help with this a bit by creating non-word 'language elements' (definition technically: "a written character symbolizing the idea of a thing without indicating the sounds used to say it, e.g., numerals and Chinese characters"). When we are learning a new language, it is one thing to learn a given word, but once we know and understand it, then we can branch out with a lot more subtlety around and within it. "Home" doesn't mean house, it can also mean "home plate" for baseball or "where the heart is" for a place one considers home though they haven't been in 40 years or whatever. But it kind of takes first establishing the base concept/word in someone, and then building on that.

I once went back through multiple lab books collecting (by tracing) ideograms from sessions over a period of time, and then putting them together based on what the target had been and what I thought they probably meant, to see if they really came out the same. There was more variance than ideal, partly because my ids always tended to be complex (sometimes more than one thing buried in them) and pictographic a bit, even in a 'rapid squiggle.' And I had a few cycles where they all looked similar and so either I could 'feel' within them or they were pointless, depending on the session. But you could see the recurring patterns.

Trees often showed up in the first Ids rather literally in multiple vertical lines. If I 'felt' in that, then or later in session, I could sometimes feel the sense of whether they were naturally growing or arranged. A forest is not an orchard if you see what I mean. The latter would usually tell me it was in a manmade area. Sometimes that was useful added info, sometimes not. But having an Id in order to present the concept to begin with, was useful.

PJ
 

snorble

New Member
If we can use ideograms for high level concepts like love, can we develop ideograms for abstract binary concepts, such as yes/no or some other dichotomy (up/down, high/low, big/small, etc)? If so, this might form the basis for some kind of data generation by majority vote, along the lines of Dr. Ryzl viewing binary numbers, or Dr. Carpenter viewing by morse code, both getting digital data with 100% accuracy.

Along these lines, is it better to try to make your own ideograms for something, or by trial and error find out what dichotomous concepts you have ideograms for, the same way you found out you had an ideogram for death?
 

Bluefirephoenix

New Member
Ideograms can be used for the same thing that psychometric skills are used for. I would employ both besides dowsing. Multiskill approaches usually give me better results. I add traditional skills to that.

You can develop the ideograms to be quite complex and even to the point of actual drawings. Thought it has ill repute with parapsyc crowds the traditional skills are based on effective subcsoncious communication techniques. I would get beyond the box a bit and explore and develop.
Kardec is not consdered to be anything remotely scientific anymore yet some of what he talks about has been re labeled ( sterilized) and put in the remote viewing tool belts and the results have been really spectacular. The process is re vamping an ancient skill to suit a modern viewer.

For example try finger painting for ideograms. Also sand painting. ... the tibetian technique puts you in a meditatitve state while working. just a couple more ideas. Ideograms are present in nature, smoke fire, tree branches. Use the skill to allow that connection to happen beyond the pen and paper. This is not a new thing take the modern developments and apply it to the old " mancy" skills you have yet another combination and tool

Ideograms are the oldest form of divination recorded. I'm trying to inspire you to move even more out there with them.
 

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
snorble said:
If we can use ideograms for high level concepts like love, can we develop ideograms for abstract binary concepts, such as yes/no or some other dichotomy (up/down, high/low, big/small, etc)? If so, this might form the basis for some kind of data generation by majority vote, along the lines of Dr. Ryzl viewing binary numbers, or Dr. Carpenter viewing by morse code, both getting digital data with 100% accuracy.

Along these lines, is it better to try to make your own ideograms for something, or by trial and error find out what dichotomous concepts you have ideograms for, the same way you found out you had an ideogram for death?

I had experience a number of years back where I was doing a lot of mostly blind targets for an organization being tasked by a female wherein a number of the targets ended up being related to her and or the organization of which she was an integral part. Along the way I got this very clear distinctive ideogram that turned out to be her, and after a few times came to recognize it.

Now the reason I mention this is that I don’t think, at least in my case that I could have drilled this into myself if I had wanted to, it just had to have happened. Meaning my subconscious and body decided to give me an ideogram for this woman and along the way I recognized it for what it was and it ended up a dependable tool/ road sign for me in this particular instance.

And while I know that in TRV/CRV you are taught to drill yourself over and over with things like a straight line for land, and a right angle for manmade objects for ideograms etc. until it is second nature and you do it instinctively and naturally I came to be of the opinion these symbols were gestalt like things that in fact tended to come naturally from your subconscious/ body to your brain/mind/hand as opposed to the reverse of you training your subconscious to show you these ideograms when you had these things. Now I could be off base with that and it is possible to reverse train that but what I’m saying, I think in answer to your question is that I’m not sure it’s possible to train your subconscious/ body to deliver up a particular ideogram let’s say for the number 7 as an example. Though I do believe it quite possible the sub/body might deliver up an ideogram for the number 7 on some occasion if you were viewing that number regularly or had some affinity or real attachment to it.

Another way of saying this might be that if you get into where you are assigning specific ideograms to numbers as an example and then trying to get specific numbers I suspect you’d end up with something like trying to make forced choice selections, e.g. Which hand has the coin in it? And end up with little over chance percentages.

Just my opinion, YMMV.

Gene
 

snorble

New Member
Do you think that ideograms are most optimal when physical interaction is maximized? For instance, do you expect them to be more accurate when standing and walking at a white board, as opposed to punching buttons or clicking a mouse on a computer?
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Daz that collection of yours is coming along nicely. I put the link in the 'RV Examples' box here and moved it nearer the top on the right side, fwiw. - PJ
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
snorble said:
If we can use ideograms for high level concepts like love, can we develop ideograms for abstract binary concepts, such as yes/no or some other dichotomy (up/down, high/low, big/small, etc)? If so, this might form the basis for some kind of data generation by majority vote, along the lines of Dr. Ryzl viewing binary numbers, or Dr. Carpenter viewing by morse code, both getting digital data with 100% accuracy.

Along these lines, is it better to try to make your own ideograms for something, or by trial and error find out what dichotomous concepts you have ideograms for, the same way you found out you had an ideogram for death?

Well, a few things in response to that.

1. Just ask for the information and see what you get. So yes to intentionally getting one but no to the detail of what you get, it's spontaneous by nature.

2. I don't consider that death ideogram I mentioned to be a binary information. It wasn't really a pre-existing question of whether a biological creature was dead or alive that brought it. I considered it more like "an event" information-package, containing not only 'the event has happened' but some degree of info on that event (such as its suddenness / severity, quantity involved, animal vs. human, etc.). You might say that if I had to compare it to other information, to me it would be more like an Id for say, 'competition' with related info, than it would be like an Id for "No." or "the number 4."

3. What we can do in theory, might differ in practice -- or based on the person. I did have a period of practicing what I called "blind binary dowsing" which for me I considered a not great outcome, and this may very well simply be that I suck at it of course, but I would always throw in decoy tasks as a sort of sanity check when I ran a series of mostly truly-unknowns. So I would be doing semi-ok on binary questions about tasks, not perfect but not horrible, and then I'd get one like "My name is Melissa, yes or no?" and I'd get it wrong, which would make me think I was deluding myself because as much as I could maybe blame inaccuracy about a target on a thousand things, I couldn't blame inaccuracy on my own name on much besides just being totally wrong.

The reason remote viewing got such props in science is because "free response" (within a properly managed target pool bandwidth -- the FR controls for a degree of memory, the limits on TP bandwidth control for a degree of imagination) statistically just gets much better results than forced-choice work ever had.

RV was more consistent for me (if such a thing can ever be said about psi, objectively). What BBD mainly did was teach me to think through a tasking, since getting a yes or no answer to something real-world usually makes you realize that you still don't actually have the answer you need or haven't yet also-accounted for what 'could' be and you have more questions.

RV is free-response psi, and the free response part is utterly critical to RV's definition. But any kind of psi work, if someone is decent at it, and you can do it within a decent blinding protocol, is worth bringing to the table in my opinion.

**

In my meditation work -- which on occasion bleeds into RV or is part of an intentional experiment with it -- what Richard Bandler called "mental tools" work just fine. For example I can create 'meters' -- which for me are like a tall thin tube filled with something, like a thermomenter nearly as tall as me and freestanding, it's just an imaginative construct. And then I can ask questions aimed at my meters to show me the state of something, from "will outcome X manifest" (middle of meter is the division from no to yes), and questions that 'compare' a couple things to each other (and can measure nebulous things like someone's "intent").

The meters carry more than merely yes/no though -- it is a whole spectrum, not simple forced-choice -- as they can show what degree of things, and their fill and steadiness and color and so on can provide a lot of additional passive but relevant data. Much like ajna chakra stuff which is visual but has emotion, concept, visceral and more as part of it, anything internal, even an imaginatively created 'tool', can give that. The more one uses a given mental tool the more the thoughtform ('conscious dream symbol') solidifies and the better it works.

So, I think the question of "what is possible?" always has to be, in armchair-theory, "just about anything." Bearing in mind that IS "armchair theory."

But really everything is up to the viewer -- their competence with it. I'm referring here not just to practice and eventual skill, but simply to the biological and psychological nature of an individual. Some people are going to be better at illustration and some people are going to be better at music and some people are going to be better at daredevil sports, that's just the way it is, and psychic work has its own range of included talents. Not everybody has all of them so there are going to be viewers who rock at dowsing or sketching and those who don't. So whether something is "possible" and "how well" is likely to be a different answer for everybody.

I also think how one goes about it matters too, though. For example I do very poorly in forced-choice scenarios, I can even feel it, but my 'mental tool' of the meter, even though technically it does (at the halfway point) provided what amounts to binary information, also provides enough other information, often subtly, that I can use that 'tool' as a form of dowsing and still have quite a lot of room for free-response in there, whereas I wouldn't do as well with merely choosing or a pendulum. So to some degree I think a viewer can 'adapt' their methodology to what works for them.

PJ
 

snorble

New Member
I like the meter idea. It seems superior to the basic number line that people use. I also like he idea of a circle, like a dial or clock, like Dick uses for geolocation. I suspect if you ran analysis of the points people select on a time line, it would have some kind of normal distribution, where the middle gets picked more often than the edges. I think that effect would be reduced using a circle and direction like a clock hand.
 
Top