The new models are IN!


Staff member
if I was just able to believe enough.... I could do anything. Maybe so... maybe not.
Well, literally everything a viewer does needs to tie into forcing the belief systems to change.

(Now almost everybody THINKS that they believe in psi and have no fear of psi, but I suspect this is inaccurate. I mean we can say anything on a conscious level, but clearly there is something more involved.)

One (of many, but the main) reason for insisting bigtime that protocol be followed--I mean RV protocol, NOT the 'methods' that people are told are 'protocols'--is because nothing, but nothing, works on the belief systems as well as deliberate intent, result, feedback, and inability for the subconscious mind to have ANY other out no matter how slight.

When the sc has anything it can deflect upon, no matter how slight, it will, because change is death to the psyche apparently, and it will do everything it can to fit the experience into existing structures. It will not change structures, especially those more core to the person, without repeated, constant, hard-proof battering basically. Only practice in protocol brings that. Everything else, every 'waffling', every feedback that shifts from one pic to 'anything I can find on the internet', every not totally blind session or monitor frontloaded session, the mind can find an "out" for the psi with those. A slight misdirection, anything.

But db session, feedback, conscious recognition, that forces change. The more people do it, the more it forces change.

Which usually leads to people responding in a predictable way: they don't want change. Most fall out of RV altogether, suddenly not having time, or interest, and years later you'll find them saying "yeah, someday I'll get back to doing that"... and maybe they will. But probably, only if they recognize there was more to their departure than time.

Others decide only to view targets that are esoteric or that don't have feedback or that are "ops" with seriously limited broad-scope feedback. Others decide they simply can't view 'picture targets' anymore and drastically cut down their viewing because gosh, now they don't have a tasker very often.

And the psyche is great. It goes through refusing to get data, getting data that is 180 degrees wrong, getting data that is scary, you name it, to persuade us not to mess with its core structures, to let it be.

Only a rare quantity of very hardheaded individuals push forth despite all of that, to eventually reach a point in RV that is exceptional--which is reflected by a belief system that has become a known--and you can tell one by the other, because one finds the other.

Concerning belief, I think belief and knowing are different things. Disbelief is one thing; lack of belief either way is one thing; belief is one thing; but KNOWING is something else entirely. I think when we are too young or too stupid to know something is supposed to be hard, we often succeed, not because we believe or know, but because our lack of beliefs of any kind mean we do NOT have to fight doubt. Which can free us to 'just do it'.

But I think once the psychology realizes what one is doing, and how it compares to what seems 'normal' in some fashion, then the performance falloff hits. THEN, the person has to work on building a belief, which eventually can become a known.

Ergh, words....



.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
Re: TKR Social & Meeting on: Jun 11th, 2004
Waterway wrote:

I am trying to come up with the unifying theory of everything, but all I have is the number 2 and a sphere..... needs work.

Maybe not so much work...

1= Intent + 1= Beliefs = 2 = the sphere.. A continuous circle... one feeding into the other into the other non stop.

Perhaps this the model ?


I think the old "signal line" model got such airplay cuz when it was first presented, radio and all that was the cutting edge of technology. Just as quantum theory is the hot topic of the day, we are now clamoring to mimic that model in parapsychology.

btw. I think the submerged iceberg model of consciousness/unconsciousness needs to be scrapped too....


.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
btw. I think the submerged iceberg model of consciousness/unconsciousness needs to be scrapped too....

UH OH...  :-/

....and dare I ask...replace how, with what?

Is this gonna make my head hurt?   :'(

modified to ad:

I know hundreds of thousands of pages have been written about Remote Viewing and I've read plenty of them myself, but I have to say after having done all the reading, all the thinking about it, all the chit-chat, that it's the experience of doing the actual viewing that really does the 'speaking'.

In my opinion (omg walking on egg shells here) to remote view just simply isn't's easy. What's hard is the accuracy of interpreting the data and getting enough data....but this is practice, not that it's beyond reach of doing remote viewing.

Let me try this again...not hard, but like all else, not all will be great at it, maybe not even good at it, but for sure, doable. We all do it numerous times every day ...most aren't aware of it is all.

So, after using the 'not hard' words, I'm gonna scamper out of here in a big hurry .... ;D


Staff member
If we define something as 'not hard'--when one is lousy at it--that simplifies definitions.

I can play the violin. It's easy. Of course, it nearly kills any living thing within audible distance, but hey, it's easy to play!--it's just more difficult to do well. ;D



.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
it's easy to play!--it's just more difficult to do well.

LOLOL....yep, that's what I said ;)

In so many postings throughout the forum, we mentioned the importance of intent and beliefs. I think there is a topic on intent, but not one on beliefs...on my way to start on as soon as I figure out where it belongs...


Poor, foolish pjPJ penned...

"....and dare I ask...replace how, with what? "

Well, since you asked..... I think the iceberg model is too limiting and leads to the wrong assumptions. Its simple and easy to draw, but it doesn't really reflect what seems to be going on. For one thing, what is conscious is always changing. The surface of the water is also porous... its not smooth or consistent. When you are dreaming, what is above water may be a completely different iceberg.... see...? It just doesn't fit, and doesn't help us understand the mechanics.

Now I am struggling with the "networks of meaning" model, that Indra's web thingy, but I have not gotten it all figured out yet. But in the meantime, we can replace the iceberg model with a more useful model that kind of incorporates the Indra's web ideas... but with a more agrarian flavor.

I call it... The Cows in the Barn model.

Hehehe.... where do I come up with this stuff? ::)

Anyway, lets say that consciousness is the barn, and the things you are conscious OF are the cows. Some cows are in the barn for feeding, and when its milking time, some other cows come to the barn for that. As the weather changes, or the needs of the barn change, the different cows come and go. The cows outside the barn are in the sub-conscious. The barn has many doors from which the cows come and go...

...hmm... as models go.. that one is kinda lame... but its still better than the iceberg thing.... which was my plan.

See, the model needs to be able to let us conceptualize parts of the mechanics, to see where other parts should be. The model isn't the phenomenon, but using the wrong model severely limits our understanding of the phenomenon, and our ability to learn about it. So we need new models.


.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
I call it... The Cows in the Barn model.

Hehehe.... where do I come up with this stuff?

Well, darned if I know where you dig these thingys up, but as a suggestion, maybe cutting back on the Wild Turkey and/or getting out more would clear things up a bit for you (and therefore, us as well) ;)

So....the iceberg ~ let's go back to the drawing board :p

on the top = changing variables subject to perceptions/interpretations by all of mankind as well as the individual.

Underneath = literal knowledge mostly innate but also feed by us through our constant reinforcement of beliefs/perceptions.

Let's use the word 'cold'. Up top, cold could manifest in a variety of ways and is also subjective as cold to one may only be cool to another.

Underneath, cold is cold and will be shown/exampled in the most basic ways. When viewing,dreaming, cold may be shown as ice, or shivering, or blue. Our job is to consciously decode all of this. If/when we fail, the sc still progresses as is programmed.

However, uptop, we can alter the meaning of cold to suit our ego or situation.

Let's stop here. Go over this and point out the weak spots, the flawed thinking, where/how this needs to be changed and changed to what...(besides cows on an iceberg :D)

I knew this one had the potential of hurting...while you're playing with this, I'm off to premedicate the oncoming migrain... the pain in the head model :-*


.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~

WW-So many of your postings have such strong elements of needing to contain, control and label. I recognize this because I'm apt to go in this direction myself. It serves a purpose for a while, as far as better understanding, but in the bigger picture, I find that it creates more limits than expansion.

what about the 'wild horses' model?
These creatures are who they are..they follow their hard wired instincts and live their lives purely. Enter man- we love the rawness of these creatures. We want to have more contact with them, we want, we want...and so we set up ways to get what we want. We lure and/or aggresively capture these horses and the first thing we do is 'tame' them. We inflict OUR ways upon them. WE decide how they are now to BE.

So what have we done? We have tampered with raw and natural and harnessed it/them to be as suits us.
Modified to ad: We have started to/attempted to change the basic nature of this creature. I see an aspect of what civilization has done to man a well...from a psi point of view, it has harmed us... the squashing down of 'as it is' or the constant chanting of 'this is just your imagination' (and so we conform to this way of thinking) eventually buries what we can naturally do.
If we, you, weren't so far removed from what is natural, would you be looking for a model to follow? Birds wake up in the morning, open their eyes and books, models for them...they just do it. ( I know, I know, simplistic again) ...end of modification

Yup....this is going somewhere  (I hope)....this is always a problem...thinking while typing and not having done the thinking before putting the words on the screen before it was all thought out....hence, your
Poor, foolish pjPJ penned...

So you get this model built....will it be your INDIVIDUAL model, created to suit you, your needs, ways that make sense to you, or will this be a model for everyone...a one size fits all?

The model T ran, it got from point A to point B. It could have ended there....worked the same for everyone.  But hmmmmmm.... today we have Hummers and hundreds of variables of the same basic model...depending on needs and wants. Without maintaining the basics, there would be no advancements.

So.... here comes a point?  :p  WHAT are the basics ANY model needs to have before all the extras are added?  

(passing the keyboard to WW)


.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
This is timely :D

Lawrencet just posted this on the RV/ancient Chinese thread, post #2

I believe that one chinese saying "no method is the best method". Something like "no news is a good news". I am trying this too. I think that CRV and other methods are helping us to use our psychic functioning, once we get used to it, no method required anymore. I am working on to this direction.

When it's all said and done, I agree with this. Once we get used to it, just do it....basically,it will take care of itself.

NOW I give the keyboard to WW ;D


Staff member
Once I was in a toystore in a big shopping mall. They had a weird thing there I hadn't seen before. It was about the size of an 8x10" picture frame. But inside the frame were these little soft-metal "pins', side by side in a solid little 'wall'. But they were totally flexible.

A boy stuck his face into it, and the pins perfectly formed to the contours of his face, so it looked like a metal face made of that material was looking out.

I thought about something Seth said. That the 'focus personality' was made up of lots of different parts of us, and, in varying percentages/degrees.

I thought of that frame, with each 'pin' being an 'aspect' of us. The pins, depending on how far they were pushed forward, created a "face" for the world. Any slight variation even in the 'degree' of how much some parts project, changes the face just slightly.

(I notice my and my child's face change substantially more than I ever thought human faces could. I suppose in pictures it would seem the same, yet I see so many daily differences. I think he actually suggested this was so as well but I don't recall the detail.)

Using the many-many 'parts' to 'frame' a 'face' seemed to me like such a wonderful allegory to what Jane Roberts called Aspect Psychology--which I think is the most worthwhile work in that field in eons.

Unrelated conceptually, but related physically (there's a switch):

It also made me think of a brief study I once did on Chinese face-reading. I got some books and attempted to just outline 'personality' and major traits of several people my friend and both knew based on what the books said about features etc. It was really quite astonishing. And I realized that actually we read faces all the time. We instinctively, often recognize high foreheads as intelligence, sharply pointed eyebrows as controlling, square jaws as stubborn, high-bridge noses as autocratic, or whatever--this isn't really what the book said, I'm just making examples--we interpret that all the time. I realized that many diseases have as side effects facial effects, such as down syndrome creating the flat face, and it occurred to me that races with very flat faces (such as Eskimo) have sometimes suffered bias from others for allegedly being slow or stupid; it got me wondering about how much really IS in our face.

You look at how peoples' faces change from childhood to adulthood. Some change so much you hardly recognize them. Some barely at all. Some people change more from 40-50 than they did from 17-40.

So to bring this back to where I started, I wondered if maybe the "focus personality" as I was allegorizing that toy, was literally a person's "face for the world". And it made me wonder if the minute daily changes in our face that most folks are oblivious to--I think they just don't pay attention--are actually signs of the changes inside us, in the "change in the composite which makes us up today", so to speak.




For my own learning about the mechanics of PSI, I think a model helps.  I think the models we have been using are inadequate, since a hundred or so years later we are not much closer to solving the mystery.  I think the mystery can be solved, and it doesn't detract from it to solve it.  

I also don't think that ULTIMATELY we can get the exactly right model or explanation.  The universe is always bigger.  I could be wrong.  

But I want better models to provide new insight into the mechanics, so that is why I started this thread.

I am just trying to use science to figure this out, or at least shed more light on it.   Yes, it takes the magical, unfettered aspect out of it.... but I believe that magic is limitless and cannot be used up..... so I don't worry about taking that away.  

... and honestly, at this point, I don't know for sure if the magical quality can even be teased out of PSI.  THAT IS WHY I want new models.

I am giving a presentation on the J.E. Kennedy article from the Spring 2003 volume of the Journal of Parapsychology entitled "The Capricious, actively evasive, unsustainable nature of PSI: A summary and hypothesis" there at the Rhine Research Center on July 21st.  As you can tell from the title, the mystery remains, and I think its a beautiful thing.  But I think the REASON for so much mystery is our faulty models.  

BTW, you are all invited to the presentation there in Durham, NC at noon that day.  It should be darn fascinating.  


.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
I am just trying to use science to figure this out, or at least shed more light on it.   Yes, it takes the magical, unfettered aspect out of it.... but I believe that magic is limitless and cannot be used up..... so I don't worry about taking that away.  

.....and there it is...the used the word belief:D

Waterway, I hope you are not thinking my posts are being critical of what you are doing and or trying to do....they are not. If they seem otherwise, then I've done poorly with expressing myself.

I felt you were serious and were really on a quest 'to know' and while I sure don't have answers for you, I thought perhaps if I threw some stuff out there, you would have something, if nothing less, to throw some darts at....kind of brain storming in a way...devils advocate?

I find that when I get stumped with something, that just tossing most anything relative around will often open up a perspective I've not had before or reopen one I've lost sight of.  

Lot's of times, when asked, what is it you want, (not YOU, but any one of us) the answer commonly is, I don't know. Sometimes, by knowing what we don't want or like, we discover what it is we are looking for.

I hope you took my comments in the manner in which I meant be helpful, to perhaps reinforce something you already innately know by having you say/think...geez....what she said is a bunch of crock...stuff like that  :D

Wouldn't I love to go to your lecture...sigh.... would that I could. I certainly wish you well. You are bright and thoughtful so I'm sure you will impart much useful information and insights.

I support your looking for new ways of doing and looking at things. It is so darned easy to just sit back and let things be... it takes an adventurous spirit to shake things up a bit. Good for you!

modified to make corrections on stupid mistakes...when will I learn not to adlib on the keyboard :p


Staff member

Have fun with the proposal. Did you ask the people best at psi--not just the armchair rhetorists--what THEY think is the reason for unpredictability? Just curious.



New Member
This thread has been very interesting and high level and so my explanation might not seem very interesting but I'll try anyway.
To answer the original question I'll try to tell my "theory" of RV or more precisely my theory of PSI as I think RV is just a part of this greater domain.

Through the years I came to adopt the following system of beliefs:
I think the mind is capable of potentially anything but we cannot fully understand it because there IS an "outside" reality from which all our experiences come(This contradicts some philosophical theories saying that reality is just an illusion ,it implies the coexistence of two "worlds" physical and spiritual.Also the physical one is self-sufficient) .All our experience,languages and logic systems are forged "in" reality(the brain) and not in the all-encompassing void/totality that is our mind (or soul or ghost however you want to call it).This is why we cannot do everything we want or understand fully the universe or the nature of our presence in "this place".Because our system of logic is a byproduct of the interaction between "divinity"(just a word) and reality.
Our "divine soul" itself is all-seeing but it is like an autist in that it cannot communicate what it "knows" to our "knowledge"/intellect.Only the "animal" can have intents/desires and act.

I think all the PSI rituals are that ,just rituals (RV being one of the most perfected and documented ones).Be it RV,tarot reading,crystal ball,whatever else you imagine to create a logic system that will try to harness a part of the unlimited soul.
(I also believe that to the same extent,the soul has unlimited power to act upon reality (TK in simpler words) with the same limitations,but this is another debate.)

So to sum it up  ,you can (and you need to) adopt whatever system of beliefs that you want, to explain your PSI but in the end it will be nothing else than a ritual.Even if you imagine little quarks travelling through ether or whatever science vocabulary,it will be the same.
You are just creating your own little "totems" through  which,you'll build up confidence, intent and faith(that's the fuel).
Use it, it's necessary, but know that it will come to its limits sooner or later.So make sure you choose something that at least entertains you....
(of course all I've said in the above text is also an imperfect intent to create my own ritual so don't go too deeply into it...)


New Member
I resonated to Cyberyoyo's theory (Simeon Hein would approve the expression, anyway) about the limits of philosophy and explanation, and saying it amounts to a ritual. Useful, but basically a ritual.

A great man once said that the purpose of philosophy is not to understand the world, but to change it. Our purpose in doing RV I hope is also to change the world, not understand it. Doesn't mean we can't try to understand it though.

It makes sense that verbal constructs, no matter how clever, informed and profound, run up against the limit that they are words (concepts) in a universe that is a great deal more than words or concepts. All philosophy has a limit, although philosophers make a living by trying to convince us of the reverse.

So too models of RV or other psychic methods will eventually run into their own limits. Still, having said all that, models do often help us explain phenomena in the physical world, and one likes to think, in the mental world too. At least shrinks and others make a living telling us it is so. :p

So I agree with the quest for models and explanations for the mechanisms by which RV works. Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself.

As to the signal line model - is there a scintilla of evidence for it?



Staff member
I don't disagree with the proposed model, but I don't agree either; I sort of suspend judgement.

Since we don't have an answer, it's as likely as anything else!

But it's like saying, "Well there's thing thing we can't possibly know about, and that's the answer, we just can't know it." That isn't the kind of answer I'm comfortable with, as it only re-mystifies everything, even though it might be true; it doesn't get me any closer to understanding myself, which is pretty much the point or route of most 'models' to begin with.

I agree at least that no matter how we think about something, it is always our model, and that all models have their limits. I can almost measure my own personal growth of the past by the changes in my way of thinking about things, my mental models; though it is less easy to have any measure for 'growth' than it is to at least recognize one has gradually let go of certain now-evident limits.

I sometimes think of belief systems like one of those mazes you find in magazines, that you navigate with a pen. Say that you could only see, in your labrynth, the path you were on. You would need to follow it, till you were at least near the end, to realize that it was a dead end. And yet, if you hadn't followed that path at least part of the way, you would never get to the 'turn off' into yet another path, which you needed to take. In the end one may find that the inside (goal) was the outside (where you started) all along. But in the meantime, all the "movement" happens as we follow the paths of our belief systems, and they either lead us into a wall or into offshoot paths that have more potential. That's a very linear way of describing something that is not at all linear, of course. :)



So in developing an alternative model(s) to the old mechanical ones, I am holding out hope that newer "conceptualizations" can shed some new light on the old question of HOW PSI WORKS.

I read over the weekend an article in the Journal of Parapsychology, v67, 1., by Mario Varvoglis Scientists, Shamans and Sages: Gazing Through Six Hats."

He suggests six ways of dealing with information and creating models. Its a good read. What follows is pulled directly from the article, I highly recommend it. He describes six hats that are six approaches to understanding a phenomenon. They are:

White Hat: Analytical, rational intelligence, focusing on information, facts and figures, "objective," quanitifiable facets of the issue, inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the known data.

Black Hat: Critical intelligence, conservativism, skepticism, with a focus on weaknesses, risks, problems, and shortcomings; the 'devil's advocate'.

Yellow Hat; Constructive intelligence, adaptability, optimism, positive problem-solving attitude, geared toward improvements, opportunities, possibilities, the 'angel's advocate'.

Red Hat: Emotional intelligence, based on gut feelings, instinct, intuitions, and hunches; the focus here is on the psychological, interpersonal, affective components of the problem or project.

Green Hat: Divergent or creative intelligence - rejection of established rules and norms, visionary 'thinking out of the box', wild ideas, extravagant possibilities, provocation, inventiveness.

Blue Hat: Transversal or cross-functional intelligence; broad, global perspectives, overview, synthesis and reconciliation of different view-points. This hat comes close to what we might call wisdom.

Varvoglis suggests we spend some time with each of these hats (aluminum foil was never mentioned...) on our heads as we struggle with these questions.


New Member
Ahem... you know, my new tin foil hat models come in a variety of automobile paint quality finishes.

The paint is extra though. But man, you wil be the most fashionable person in the whole ward!