The new models are IN!

waterway

Member
I've been reading again, and thinking... a deadly combination, and I am wanting to hear about models of how RV works.

There are a couple of models/metaphors that seem to be prevelent, and I think it may be our faulty models that are slowing down progress in figuring out the mechanics involved.

The two that seem to get the most attention are:

1. Information flying throught the ether from one spot to another like radio waves. Our consciounsness gets data because it is sent to us from somewhere else.

2. Interconnected web of information, where each bit of info is connected by relationships to other bits of info in some giant pool of data. Our consciousness gets data cuz its attached to that network of data.

There are others, and I want to hear about them. Quantum data transfer and holographic data transfer are two others that come to mind, but they both seem like variations on first idea above. I don't put much stock in these two anyway, but others think they are very useful.

So enlighten me folks. What models have I left out that will illuminate the true mechanics of the this process?
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
3. Everything is at one point in time-space. So the info doesn't go anywhere, to anywhere; the info "is" here-now just as much as we are (and everything is). That's my fave model for the last 5 minutes.
 

waterway

Member
She said:

"That's my fave model for the last 5 minutes."

.....and an excellent model it is.  Using this model, how do we discern what to be conscious of?  Why are we only attending to certain things?  Why do I perceive myself to be here, now?  
 

polkadotpuhjommies

.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
4. Focus on the intent of doing a session...the intent of self as well as what the taskers intent is of the target.

5. Understanding how to use symbolisim...in particular, the symbolisim that is unique to each viewer.
 

polkadotpuhjommies

.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
Our consciounsness gets data because it is sent to us from somewhere else.

This I believe is one of the largest stumbling blocks to and for viewers. The information is WITHIN US AT ALL TIMES.... we need to be able to decode it into terms and senses that we INDIVIDUALLY can relate to...it's a language of reading forms of energy.
 

waterway

Member
pjPJ,

Those are good suggestions for improving RV, very good. But how do you think the RV data gets from THERE to YOU? Or is that even a correct question? According to PJ, there is only YOU.

But how do you go from "Hmm... these Rice Crispies sure are tasty" to "I see a barn, some people standing out front" in an RV session? How does Intent get the data to you? How does understanding your symbol meanings get RV data to you to talk about?
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Waterway,

I think our consciousness chooses what to pay attention to, period. I think you are you, here, now, because you choose to pay attention to that. Having practiced paying attention in that way since birth, you're pretty good at it, to the point that you might even find it difficult or impossible to let go of. But, should you want, you could 'pay attention' to 'being' something else... like the target. You see I'm not sure if we are actually perceiving the target as something separate, or if we are actually perceiving 'being' the target on some level, and in order to get through our brain it's simply translating energy-info through the closest experience (mental models, pictures, etc.) we have.

I once said that we were everywhere at once--I was referring to 'dimensions' at the time, and the 'rainbow of soul' as I called it (related to astral travel, alien abduction, etc.)--that "perception was the moving point." I still think in that model. That we never go anywhere (there's nowhere to go); that our "attention" is what "travels"--so to speak. It travels not in time or space but in 'attention'.

PJ
 

polkadotpuhjommies

.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
But how do you think the RV data gets from THERE to YOU?

okay...assuming there is only us, the 'you' the 'I' factor, the data in it's pure form needs OUR personal intelligence to decode it. In most cases, the data we receive is in forms that are decodeable (?) by self.

Rice crispies- literal would be cereal and most likely wrong. Let's break down symbolically what rice crispies are: food, crisp, light, oblong, grain, rough coarse texture, edible, natural, and so on....and depending on the personality and or life experience of the viewer receiving this as data, it could be along the lines of: humor, advertising, early morning and the like...

to "I see a barn, some people standing out front"

again....break down 'barn' and determine what the 2 pieces of data are presenting as a common link. The barn could be 'grain storage, enclosure, structure, manmade...blah blah

How does Intent get the data to you?
As well as this being a personal belief within me, I also think it 'works' because that's simply the way it is, however, MY belief in it makes it almost fool proof. Why? Because I believe that the simple need of wanting 'to know' will allow the data to rise to my consciousness....and for ME, just for me, it's the honestly of my intent that gets me 'something'. I do also believe that ill intent will also produce data, but over the long haul, will be less and less credible as the diviant personality of the viewer declines into the lowest of vibrations...their data will be flawed and not as detailed...in my opinion.

How does understanding your symbol meanings get RV data to you to talk about?


...in addition, rice crispies also 'talk' snap, crackle, pop ;D

WW, my answer to your last question pretty much hooks in with all I've said above.
 

waterway

Member
pdPJ and PJ,

You folks are great, your responses very valuable, so thanks.

As far as models go, it seems that both of you are subscribing to my tinker-toy model, aka Indra's Web, aka (as much as I hate to say it) The Matrix model. Where all info, past and future and all places, is right here, right now, and it is attention/consciousness that actually is percieving time and place. This is my favorite model at the moment too. If I have assumed wrong and you disagree, please correct me.

I am trying to figure out WHAT attracts the consciousness, the attention, to a particular time/place. It seems intent helps.

I don't want to go into all the ramifications of this theory/model though, that is for another thread. But what are OTHER models. I still wonder if some new ways of looking at this might be benficial.

Thanks so much for all the contributions.
 

polkadotpuhjommies

.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
6. Trust - trust that you will 'get' and have data that is meaningful. Trust that your intent to 'want data' will produce. After this, it is up to self to determine how to use the data, how to apply it and know which is more important, pertainent.

I layer data from strongest, strong, weak. This is based on sensing during the session. I have a feel for what is bigger as well as 'yeah, probably, but the sense is so weak that it likely isn't important overall' as opposed to 'boy...THAT'S REALLY dark, very black'

Matter of fact, I just turned in a session having to do with 'darkness'. I've never before had a 'dark' session. One of my strongest abilities is that of seeing colors and this one was basically void of color. I've since seen the photo and now understand why. My point is this: because I am so used to receiving 'color' the fact that I didn't this time stood out...so blackness was important, it was 'bigger'.

Another aspect of this session that I found new and interesting was how little data there was in form I am accustomed to...didn't get the usual words, pictures, sounds etc. Fortunately, I did do 3 super simple ideograms and those are what were the most productive for me.
 

polkadotpuhjommies

.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
I am trying to figure out WHAT attracts the consciousness, the attention, to a particular time/place.  It seems intent helps.  

4. a/ intent -  I think intent is everything. Intent being the thought...action follows thought. Action = energy.
Energy = form, subtance, matter.

modified to ad:

4. b/
how do we discern what to be conscious of
The intent will take you, will be the focus of the data received. This data is what is surfacing to your conscious mind for your attention.
 

polkadotpuhjommies

.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
geeezzzz WaterWay....your postings always do this to me...thought provoking. I need to be getting ready for some PT and here I am working on #7 ::)

7. Normalcy (sp?)
Understand and believing that obtaining data through RVing and/or any other psi method is not 'supernatural' or 'gifted'. Anyone one of us, All of us, have the ability to do this. The differences in results has only to do with basic talent (some have more, some less as in all things we do). The desire to even persue aspects beyond our 3D awareness is an individual choice and will determine how much we will grow in ability. The, and again THE word, intent to use and apply our psi abilities as best we can will continue to feed us data as we need/want it...on all levels, not just 'doing targets'

Damn...gotta go...those electrodes are waiting for me ;D
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
waterway,

What causes our attention to focus where it does? That's a big question. That could get back to our discussions in other threads about viewers viewing for 'validation' more than accuracy, the possible social result having a retroactive effect, and things like that.

It's also possible that the question isn't that easy to ask. How do we know where it focuses? Say we have a target that is a house in front of a mountain. Say we describe elements of the house and the mountain. Well how do we know that really, we didn't get ALL the data, and just fail to bring the rest through? How do we know we didn't get a whole chapter on the agricultural fields between the house and mountain, that we spaced out? What I mean is, maybe on some primary level, we pay attention to things that are not obvious or even findable in the final data.

I can't tell you how many times I've gotten data right in a session for the wrong reasons. Like feeling sure that a color, shape or quality was attached to one thing, and I wrote it down, and it totally wasn't--but happened to be somewhere else. So the data looked accurate. Was I right and interpreting it wrongly? Or was I wrong and matching it by chance? Which is not that unusual, there are a limited number of primary gestalts, forms, basic descriptives and concepts.

I don't want an answer, I mean I don't think anybody really has that answer. I mean that rhetorically. How do we know that we can even well track the 'attention' of 'perspective'? So wouldn't that make it more difficult to figure out what 'causes' our perspective/attention to 'seem to be' in one ... er. Not place... really, english lacks words for this!

What is it that causes viewer1 to get the word "falling", and viewer2 to symbolically see something falling, and viewer3 to fuzzily see the literal falling, and viewer4 to personally "feel" they are falling, and viewer5 to have an 'abstract sense' of falling? It's all the same info, from the same target; why do people 'get' it so differently? I don't know we'll ever know this really, but it's a question that has to be in the middle of the one you've got.

PJ
 

waterway

Member
Aaaah, how often I have longed to say:

"gotta go...those electrodes are waiting for me."

... this definitely is a big, hairy topic/question. You peoples are helping to define our terms, and the dynamics of our tinker-toy model, which is really nice and helpful since its the one I subscribe to.

.... but is it very difficult to make the results fit the model cuz we have the wrong model? Again, I am using this Indra's web model, where it all right here now, but I still wonder...... maybe the questions are so complex because we have the puzzle pieces out of place....
 

polkadotpuhjommies

.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
Aaaah, how often I have longed to say:

"gotta go...those electrodes are waiting for me."

;)

...of course, as is always the case, what is one man's pleasure could be another man's fear...as in the case of someone 'waiting' on death row.... :-/

Now that I've had my 18th psychic electrode jolt session and you've said
maybe the questions are so complex because we have the puzzle pieces out of place....
I'll offer this: perhaps the model is individual. Perhaps we are meant to build our own model and work within 'it' rather than accept a model built by another using their limits? Maybe it's really as simple as the steps 1 through 7 and not so complex at all.

Youngsters have the best perspectives...EVERYTHING is simple and therefore doable. We adults have the uncanny knack of turning simple into 1000 shades of gray and the more complex the better our egos/minds seem to like it...gives our heads something to do.

Chew on this for a bit and then fire off your next 'think tank buster' :D
 

Glyn

New Member
I think RV is precognition... of potentially everything that will be associated *in our minds* with a particular session in the future. Not necessarily just the target we are 'aiming' for either, but if we are unfocused it may include 'other' feedback that we may have incorporated, both accidentally or otherwise. Just a 'feature' of psi that could be countered by ditching fears and improving focus perhaps....easier said than done of course ;).

I think that we somehow take information from our memories in what we think of as the future. (See the Future Memory thread for background). Maybe because there is no such thing as time. Maybe because there is only one 'mind' and we are only separate in the physical. Maybe for some other reason.

I think that maybe what we get to know of the target from the point of our first feedback up until the day we die, (and maybe even beyond)...is ours potentially to pick from, and accuracy in our sessions can depend on point of access in time..because if we access our future mind/memories at half-time...then the result of the match may change a lot; if you get my drift :).

Maybe we do not have free choice after all, and those apparent alternative outcomes will always resolve into a final event that is already 'set-in-stone'. I think that accessing an event too early may be partly responsible for psi having a reputation for being unreliable.

Maybe our consciousness is set in a blinkered, linear 'harness' so that we can function in the physical world..lots of others think that way too.

Oh, and of course getting at the correct target information is one thing.......interpreting it is quite another. ;D.

Which is why RV is so wonderful but so damn frustrating. :p

That's my thoughts on it all at the moment, but my opinions are subject to change any second. ::)


Grins,
Glyn
 

polkadotpuhjommies

.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
What is it that causes viewer1 to get the word "falling", and viewer2 to symbolically see something falling, and viewer3 to fuzzily see the literal falling, and viewer4 to personally "feel" they are falling, and viewer5 to have an 'abstract sense' of falling? It's all the same info, from the same target; why do people 'get' it so differently? I don't know we'll ever know this really, but it's a question that has to be in the middle of the one you've got.

Using the simplicity of a child as I just posted about, how about this-
viewer 1 could have their major real life abilities in languages, be an avid reader, does crossword puzzles and therefore would recieve in a manner most appropriate for THEM.

viewer 2 could be a more visual type person.

viewer 3 a more left brained logical type person

viewer 4 a more of an empath, more of a feeling person

viewer 5 a more mathmatically inclined person.

All viewers will recieve data in the manner best suited for their level and ability to interpret it.

Knee jerk thoughts from my childs mind...
(go for it Waterway...do the hair splitting on these) ;D
 

waterway

Member
"I'll offer this: perhaps the model is individual."

Ooooh, now THAT helps.. ::)

Yes, I think the car can be easy to drive, but how does it work? Perhaps the need to know how it works PREVENTS you from learning how it works.... but I refuse to accept that. I just do.

.... I don't mean to be a hair-splitter, but it just is not true that children think it is doable and DO IT. Now granted.... even if I could "know" I could dunk the basketball.... could I? This is a mire we've wallowed in before... if I don't do it its cuz I do not believe, if I was just able to believe enough.... I could do anything.

Maybe so... maybe not.

But that still doesn't provide me a model to explain what DOES WORK.

We are doing well, I don't expect the 100 year old mystery to be solved this afternoon, but I do appreciate the insights provided. The different models shed helpful light, and its a good thing. Keep them coming.
 

polkadotpuhjommies

.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
"I'll offer this: perhaps the model is individual."

Ooooh, now THAT helps..

well good...then you're 'getting it' - the point being, WE get to create and build our own model....that which works for self....which you are already attempting to do with this thread....

you are exploring what might work, what does work, what has been said that does work but apparently isn't...blah blah...

maybe you don't realize you are even doing this...creating and building YOUR model. As for HOW the model works, well geez... you built it...so you will know how it works. After all, who knows better what self needs/wants than self?

As for the other:
.... I don't mean to be a hair-splitter, but it just is not true that children think it is doable and DO IT. Now granted.... even if I could "know" I could dunk the basketball.... could I?

Mommy, mommy, look at the birds flying. Mommy I can fly, I just need to flap my arms...watch me Mommy.... OMG Johnny....get off the window ledge!!
Yes, I do think kids think they can do everything...and wisely, parents were invented to make their lives miserable :D

Could you dunk the ball? Probably, eventually, depending on lots of factors... to KNOW how it's done is very different than do I want to, am I tall enough to reach the hoop, am I strong enough to catipulte the ball that far, what about my fear of failure? and the same old list of what's and if's apply.... but for sure, you NEVER will if you don't try...but we all know that.

Knowing and doing are different ...we agree on this. Knowing along with willingness, talent, intelligence also makes the 'knowing' different...
 
Top