The new models are IN!

[wizopeva]

I do agree that training is not required. Psi is a natural skill. On the other hand, I think for most people, training can be a useful short cut. It teaches you how to get more information and organization that information. It can clarify a lot of things and stages that occur during a session. When you are stuck or think you are done, it can show that you are not and give you strategies for how to continue. I know some viewers who have developed those self same skills without any official training, but I think it may have took them a little longer and required a lot more work. In the end, it may have helped them to figure it out for themselves, but on the other hand, they probably also paid a lot of attention to what other people did and said about sessions and may be somewhat unique in their drive and ability to synthesize that info.

Of course, any method that is too strict might also cause problems. People are different and their inner self reflects differently in the session. I am not sure that too much rigidity is good for everyone, although for people who like rigidity, it might well be a great thing, LOL!

I do think it's interesting that rv developed in the military and probably reflects a lot of that military nuance right down to a preference for acronyms. But yet the first generation CRVers have already started to demonstrate individual variation in the way they practice and teach it and some trainers are more rigid than others. Like any set of rules, there can be a big difference between those who follow every detail and those who feel the spirit of the rules is the more important issue.
-E

This is timely  

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


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

 

[polkadotpuhjommies]

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.

So?? How did it go? What were the highlights? Were you pleased with the attendence?

 

[waterway]

Wow, what a great event.

Just two suggestions for the Rhine Research Center before my next presentation.

1) Post some flashing signs that say "Please hold applause until after the presentation". Those relentless standing ovations really broke down the rhythm of my talk.

2) If we are gonna have a mosh pit, we need more than 8 people in attendence. I still can't focus correctly with my left eye. Sheesh.

Okay, all joking aside, it went pretty well. I mean, no one threw anything at me, which for my talks is a good sign.

It sure stirred up conversation. The tone of the article was at first skeptical, so the scientists in attendence made sure to point out that PSI research WAS making progress. It wasn't MY article, but it raises questions I like, which is why I chose it to discuss. I hope others there will take up the torch and present some talks on the more common models and "theories" on the mechanics of the process in the near future. There was the usual crowd there, we are rebuilding our mailing list and the server crashed last month.... so the PR effort was small. I also know I am not the headliner act for the RRC, they were doubtless allowing me to present the article to throw me a bone, and to show others that even a plebe such as me can take initiative and contribute to the cause. I am also grateful there was a giant crowd since I am not used to speaking to that crowd on that topic. Though I have a lot of experience speaking in front of rooms of people, its not been on this topic, so until I get a few under my belt, its gonna be nail-biting time...

But I did what I wanted to do with the lecture. I wanted to point out that though we definitely know PSI exists, we are still perplexed as to what the "model' is... (see how I tied it into this thread...?), and that is what we discussed.

and btw.... I came across a copy of Ingo Swann's book "Natural ESP" which I have been whining about not getting ahold of..... and it discusses models and concepts to understand the mechanics, so I will keep you posted on that. I am a few chapters in, and its a great read. That Ingo is quite insightful, and does a good job nudging your notions on "how it works" out of the old models and into new territory for conceptualization.

 

[waterway]

Went by the Rhine Research Center yesterday, to participate in an experiment of Daryl Bem's for a Sci-Fi Channel show called "Proof Positive" I think is the name.

It was a fun and fascinating experience, and it got me thinking. So get comfortable cuz I am about to start conjecturin' and I need feedback from ya, please.

I am more convinced than ever that PSI events' function is to facilitate interpersonal relationships above and beyond what would occur if the conscious, ego driven mind were left in charge. Or... something like that.

Before I go any further.... and I am gonna go further.... let me say I surely recognize and understand that my "explainations" of how PSI works are annoyingly vague and really just another "black box" to run weird variables through. When we talk about meaning, we are cutting way close to the bone of defining what reality is, and how we even percieve reality. Can any of these squirley explanations actually be used experimentally. I think so, but right now I don't know how. Maybe you can help.

Also, since we have come to understand that Time really isn't a factor, well that just makes it exponentally worse to factor out variables for experimenting, but again, I think we can do it if we apply ourselves in a creative way.

Ahem... back to my theory du jour. It seems that PSI events occur, and how they occur, has everything to do with changing relationships.

For example, yesterdays experiment and my experience regarding it. The experiment consisted of a computer program showing you 2 thematically similar photos side by side. You choose one, then a RNG chooses, and if you and the RNG have chosen the same photo, it flashes the photo at you a few times. If you miss, it just goes to the next pair. So you can tell how you are doing. Well, I am cooking, I can tell I am way over 50%, and I am doing my thing picking photos. It tells you when you get half through, for a respite, so I could guage when I was on the home stretch. Well, I was getting a lot of hits, every once in a while I missed, and as I got near the end, I started thinking about how well I am doing, cuz I am pathetically competative, and I was feeling great for myself too, since this was some validation, and I was worrying I was gonna trail off... when WHAMMO, I missed like 5 or 6 in a row. You get your "score" at the end, 50% being chance outcome, I got 60% correct.

So.... if I had been going along and thought I was just doing average, or scored average (60% is better than average but not much), I would have been kinda down, and slinked off, and probably just gone home. Or, had I still gotten 60% but consistantly, without the homestretch stumble, I would also have probably just gone home. Instead, I wanted to talk to Mr. Bem about getting some scoring data. So.... I hung around and talked with him a while and got to know him better. I also hung around and met a few other people I would not have met otherwise, people that MAY end up being good friends and/or helpers to me in the future.

And... there were other people who followed me who did much better than I did. Because I did mediocre, and they did great, I am inspired to email them and ask them about their experience. Had I scored higher than they, I problably would be so cocky and superior feeling that I would not initiate any communication.

So you see... you get just enough PSI to make significant changes in interpersonal relationships. Too much is too much, and HOW it occurred also effects that.

So... what do you think about that?

 

[PJ]

Hi Waterway! Sounds like a cool event.

I am more convinced than ever that PSI events' function is to facilitate interpersonal relationships above and beyond what would occur if the conscious, ego driven mind were left in charge.  Or... something like that.

My view is different yet same end-result. I suspect that psi primarily functions as a survival instinct. And, that in most of life, that is defined by our ability to socially integrate--the same way that from birth onward, we are constantly defining our reality by that of our parents, and looking for feedback that they agree with us and approve of us. This fulfills your "social" but also opens psi up to being a lot more in other situations that while not exactly social, do impact our life, health, or future.

So you see... you get just enough PSI to make significant changes in interpersonal relationships.  Too much is too much, and HOW it occurred also effects that. So... what do you think about that?

Hmmmn. You *might* be right about this. Or not LOL. You could alternatively have done stupendously well, best of anybody, and stayed or been asked to stay with the same results. But you didn't. The thing is, it is rather difficult to know if you are assigning a causal factor to psi that it really doesn't have.

For example, "I forgot bread in the grocery, so I went back later, and happened to see a friend from my hometown there whom I haven't seen in 20 years. I must have made myself forget bread so I could see my friend." This is the logic used here. But MAYBE you just forgot the bread, and maybe you just saw your friend, and maybe they are NOT connected nor planned out in any way... I am not saying psi isn't operating, I'm saying maybe at every single juncture (or moment) you had "choice", and the kaleidascope of probability changed with each choice you made.

The reason I say this is because what seems like a simple interconnected relationship gets labrynthine when you apply it globally. That doesn't make it un-true, just complicated lol.

If psi is real we know everything and every probability (if there is such a thing) and that is how you could know that IF you forgot the bread you could come back later at the right time and see your friend. All very well.

But it also suggests that, to use a made-up example, if you hadn't had your fan belt break in your car at an exact place one day then you wouldn't have been in the auto parts store a block away at an exact moment in 1979 where you ran into a dude you worked with years before who gave you a tip on a possible job opening which led to a new job which eventually led you to move and in the new place you met the woman who became your wife but then your second child needed a pro ice skating tutor so you moved again somewhere that made this possible while transferring your job location and then lost that job when that division closed which meant you chose doing something creative that made less money and had to sell your house and take a much smaller one in a nearby small town which is very near where you grew up which is the only reason you're at the supermarket there to run into your friend again. So did your psi plan all this junk in 1979 and result in your choosing the reality where your car broke down a block from the auto parts store?

Curiously, I have been having a conversation about ARV with a couple of online friends that ties right into this theory, but never mind. Does your logic of "psi-casuality" extend this far? It has to, right?

PJ

 

[cyberyoyo]

Hello,
Don't take offence for what I'm going to say waterway,but I think that statistically, you cannot really draw conclusion from this test with only two pictures to choose from.
I'm not saying that your session wasn't driven by a PSI effect but this event shouldn't be used to explain things because statistically it's not very interesting.On a limited number of tries (lets say 40) You could have all types of outcome,including a 100% success (or a 100% failure) only with pure luck.
Choosing from 4 picture would have been a better experiment.

 

[waterway]

PJ asked:

"Does your logic of "psi-casuality" extend this far? It has to, right? "


Yes, and yes.

You are also so right to say that it is complicated. I don't know it all, how it all works, or what all the implications are. I may never, but our discussing it sure helps, so I am grateful for this.

Since I will posit that TIME is not a factor, that everything that is going to happen is as much a done deal as everything that DID happen in the PAST.... then the concepts of potential futures and choices and all that mean nothing here. :

There are no "what-ifs". You can start the chain of causality and work it back to the big-bang (which I also have questions with...) and onto the infinite future, for everyone, everything, everywhere.

The only divergence from what "IS", is the ego-consciousness. Maybe we cannot see the future as easily as the past due to the ego-consciousness.... and as we set it aside, the future becomes more clear. But.... hey, look, I am diverging....?

Whatever will be... is already.

And Cyberyoyo, your point about the experimental design is well taken. It could have been done differently, but even with 2 choices, there is a way to say that statistically speaking, there are some results you can expect and some that are out of bounds. If given 100 choices of 2 pictures, I could on luck alone get all 100. Or any number for that matter. The experiment seemed to be pulling out probabilities, and also correlating success with belief in PSI cuz he gave us a brief questionaire prior to the evaluation.

Okay, back to my theory... criminy... I don't know how to test for any of this... or how to use this inspiring knowledge to improve my RVing....

Any suggestions?

 

[Benton]

"I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg.
The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.
The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh and I
awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt!"

Okay, chew on that for a few..... let the implications sink in..... hmmm..... maybe....

I have been thoroughly enjoying Ingo Swann's book "Natural ESP". It is a must read, IMHO, for anyone venturing into Remote Viewing. Along with Warcollier's book, it discusses how we go from gathering information in the nexus of all information (my terminology, not his), to putting it on paper. He discusses his ideas on how the mind works with PSI info, and though the above quote is not something from either book, it is a shining example of what the brain wants to do with bits of graphical info. Oh, and he also stresses that we practice, practice, practice.

What say you to that?

 

[harriet]

FUBOAULS!

 

[Benton]

Harriet said:

"FUBOAULS! "

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Benton]

"According to Scientific American (Sept. 2002, p. 103), [apparently long after Pribram's theory from the 70s], "in 1990 Herman Sno, a psychiatrist at Hospirtal de Heel in Zaandam, the Netherlands, suggested that memories are stored in a format similar to holograms. Unlike a photograph, each section of a hologram contains all the information needed to reproduce the entire picture. But the smaller the fragment, the fuzzier the resultant image. According to Sno, deja vu occurs when some small detail in one's current situation closely matches a memory fragment, conjuring up a blurry image of that former experience."

I found this quote interesting and I thought some of you might too. I've been trying to "test" this Indra's Web theory I like by running other findings through it to see how they fit.

In this case, I believe the reason each little "memory" seems to contain other aspects of the memory is not because its a hologram, or "like a hologram" in structure, but because each bit of memory is linked by related properties to other parts of the memory.

The holographic model proposes that, in this case, the whole memory is in each part of the memory, but I don't think that's how it works (nor is that how a hologram works, if you get right down to it...). Instead, each aspect of the memory is "connected" to other related parts of the memory via shared properties of the pieces.

In CRV, we are tugging on the properties of the tasked event to pull in more and more properties till we can describe the actual tasked event.

I believe that memories and past lives and reincarnation work the same way.

 

[PJ]

Hmmmn. I was brought to believe, by my own experience, that deja vu is a result of precognition. I had deja vu most of my life. All through childhood and teens and then during an unusual period in my 20's, it 'amplified'. It got stronger, and more common, more intense, until all the sudden it started coinciding and then passing reality.

In other words, it had always been a dreamy feeling that whatever just happened an instant before (many instants run together) had happened previous to that, even if I knew consciously it had not. But during the intense period, at first it got to where it was very 'current' --what was happening right now was familiar -- and then it passed it -- and I knew what was going to happen in the future, at first by maybe 1/10 of a second, eventually by about, oh maybe a second, maybe a fraction less.

I hated it. It always freaked me out when it was happening.

Anyway and then I was reading something of Seth's and he suggested that deja vu was an awareness of precognition and suddenly it all made sense to me.

Just a theory like any else but it works well for me lol.

Palyne

 

[Benton]

Hey, what if there is no Akashic Record or Matrix, and instead the only area of info we are tapping into is own experience in the future? You know, I think people have been saying this to me for years but it just hit me what they were talking about. Yes, I am slow.

I mean, since we get feedback on it in the future, everything we know is only what we will know..... I mean, there is no "alternate future", cuz on ONE is gonna happen, and we RV that future. We don't go get anything out of bounds,out there, in the limitless vastness of the unknown.... cuz when we find out about it, is here, its part of our experience.

Does any of that make sense?

 

[Rocheleh]

since we get feedback on it in the future

But what if we don't? What if someone gets our session (info... whatever, need not be an RV session) reads it, and... that's all? No feedback given? This's happened several times in the military units, hasn't it?

 

[EricT]

What if the future time that one gets feedback... is after you're dead?

/Fun speculation

Eric

 

[Glyn]

Hey Liftoff!  ;D

Hey, what if there is no Akashic Record or Matrix, and instead the only area of info we are tapping into is own experience in the future?  You know, I think people have been saying this to me for years but it just hit me what they were talking about.  Yes, I am slow.  

I mean, since we get feedback on it in the future, everything we know is only what we will know..... I mean, there is no "alternate future", cuz on ONE is gonna happen, and we RV that future.  We don't go get anything out of bounds,out there, in the limitless vastness of the unknown.... cuz when we find out about it, is here, its part of our experience.

Does any of that make sense?

You bet it does Benton! Future experience, Future Memory theory. I'm the only one I know of who has been on about it for years..........Heh heh! Eventually I knew I'd wear em down.... .

J W Dunne experimented with precog dreams and came to the conclusion that he was somehow going forward in time in his own mind, to the point where he had access to his own experience *after* the event.... which in his real physical world had not happened yet. Just like normal memory in fact, and with all the unreliability of memory, but displaced in time..and also those memories are so much weaker and way harder to access.

Sean O'Donnell gave a lecture on future memory back in the early 70s.  Like those of Dunne, it seems as if his ideas were  largely ignored; or considered 'unfashionable' perhaps.

Dunne had a theory of  Time (He thought time was serial rather than linear) which would for allow access to experience  beyond what we call death...but that hurts the brain a bit  .

RV did not exist in Dunnes time, but I think it works in  the same way, as does all 'psi'. Precognition..prior recall of future experience ('precall' as Sean O'Donnell calls it).

There's a loooong thread here called 'Future Memory and RV'. If you're interested, have a dredge through it. I've outlined Dunne's ideas. Future Memory theory is definitely worth consideration as another 'model'.

Kind regards,
Glyn

 

[Benton]

Yes, I have seen the thread, its wonderful. I may have even posted in my previous handle of "Waterway". And Dunne's book is sitting there on the table, its next in line after I finish "The Trickster and the Paranormal".

I just kept hearing about the Akashic Record as all info in the universe, but all we really ever get access to is all the info in OUR universe. There is a difference..... though I am not sure the difference.

 

[Benton]

Sorry for the length of this post, but....

Paul Smith does a good job describing his recollectios of the development of the concepts around RV by Ingo Swann, Hal Puthoff, Ed May, Russell Targ and others in the early years of the government sponsored program.

I posted a quote in the "Matrix Postulate" thread regarding The Matrix . He later in that same chapter notes that the concepts presented are only models, though the best models available and models that have successfully been worked from. Considering that, and the fact that these models of Matrix, aperature, and signal line were developed by the big dogs of RV, and because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", we are tempted to NOT develop new models using the same observed phenomenon.

But I will step out on a limb here and invite new models for 2 reasons. 1) New models may provide some new conceptual options the older models do not, and may lead to more variable correlations that do not fit in the present models., and 2) they may dig up new relationships that DO fit in the present models but have not been exposed in experimention on the present models because they are not given high priority in the present model. Research in the RV field is extremely limited, so grant dollars are spent mostly on studying the variables central to the present model.

Mr. Smith discusses the limitations of the signal line theory so I won't go into it here except to say that much research went into finding some medium to carry data and none was found. They sheilded the RVers from every possible wavelength of electromagnetic energy, and RV was unaffected.

Again, I recommend Dr. Christine Hardy's book Networks of Meaning because she talks about the information matrix as it relates to how our minds operate. She discusses how the things in our minds are related to each other by associations of meaning. So when your mind "free associates", it moves from object to object via shared properties of the two objects. Any property of a thing can connect to any other thing that shares that property, whether it is some physical attribute, time, emotion or anything else our minds can percieve as a quality of an object. Dr. Hardy refers mental objects as "semantic constellations".

So when RVing, we perceive a red... a red apple when the target is a shiney red car. But why didn't we just get the red car? I think that is because the property red was "energized" in our minds, maybe we had just seen a red chair or something else red and significant in some way. In either case, red was ready to be seen by our mind. Also, for whatever reason, "apple" was more available to be perceived than "car". Maybe we had an apple for a snack recently, or maybe we grew up on an apple farm, or had been sitting working on our Apple computer all day. For whatever reason, the object "apple" had more attention grabbing energy than any other association to the property of "red", so when we RV'd red, the next most energetic or noticable quality associated with "Red" was "car". When we start free associating from there in RV, we often get elaborate, pleasing imaginings that are only mildly related to the target. We sometimes call this AOL or squirrel chasing in RV lingo, though those definitions don't fit exactly.

Through intent, we may go back to RVing and get other qualities of the red car, such as seeing a visual of a circle, related to the tires. We may see Dorothy, the Tin-woodsman and the Scarecrow skipping down the yellow brick road, because in our minds, the "road" relates to car. We get what we get because these shared properties with "red car" are more "energized". As we proceed through CRV, we start to energize the many disparate properties of "red car" through intention and conscious attention, and the true target picture gets more clear.

I think different levels of consciousness, such as waking consciousness and the subconscious, have different "sensors" for perceiving properties of things. The ego-driven waking consciousness seems to energize properties due to their connections to some goal the conscious mind has. The subconscious does not seem to share that perceptive priority, and to the extent we RV in data and then let the conscious mind take over attention, the RV session gets sidetracked from the target. We try to distract the waking mind through CRV or just shut that bad-boy down in ERV, to get at remote viewing data. But through intention and importance communicated to the subconscious, the attention can be drawn to target data, and as we get ahold of one property of the target after another as we work through the stages of CRV, then the whole and clearer picture evolves. The picture that evolves may still contain related properties that are inaccurate for whatever reason, but when the picture becomes "good enough for government work", or filled in enough to be useful, then its deemed...well... "good enough for government work".

From my observations, the subconscious mind seems to perceive properties of the target differently from the waking mind, as I have said. It seems that social relationships between participants in the RV experience seem to energize properties of the target, especially future relationships. Since time is not a factor in The Matrix the significance of the RV event on future relationship development seems to "energize" properties of the target so the RV event will take place. Also, properties that bring people together, even if they are not related to the target, also get noticed more easily. This contributes to noise in the RVing session too. But if a property of the target is significant for the relationship of the individuals involved in the RV experience/event, then they seem to be more easily viewed in the RV session.

This explains why "beginners luck" occurs. This explains why new couples have more success in PSI tasks. This explains the "goats and sheep" phenomenon, and the "experimenter" effect. It also explains a lot more too, so just look over the research and the anecdotes and see how it fits....or more importantly to me... how it does NOT fit.

I look forward to hearing comments on this slightly different model of PSI.

 

[larrywojo]

Benton,

Being the raw newbie that I am, I hesitate to write, but seeing how much effort you put into this, it obviously deserves serious attention.

I wish I had first hand knowledge with the books you mentioned, but I don't, and that only further weakens any dialog I'd be able to offer. But since I was the author of the "Matrix Postulate" thread you referenced, please accept my contribution to this interesting topic.

First, and most important, I posted that thread all of about a week into my initial discovery of Remote Viewing, and it was based almost entirely on a previous pondering of TIME, not RV.

Second, now that I am a *little* older and wiser, I've come to see the folly of my ways. I'd have to say that more words make less sense. Now that I've truly experienced RV'ing first hand, I can only define it as "Un-Define-able".

Now, again, I'm no expert... but even as a neophyte, I believe I have a superior position to the greatest scientist whose personal experience is absent of any Remote Viewing (as would any RV'er).

I would have to agree with you that this is a most fascinating and interesting topic, and would equally as voraciously devour almost any book on the subject; but as you yourself know as a fellow RV'er of greater experience, 'definitions/postulates/etc.' pale in comparison to the "real thing".

Personally, I've more or less given up on "defining" it, and without prejudice whatsoever, have to say that those attempting to do so are preparing it for an audience who have no idea what it 'really is', and present it from exactly the same position. (And I could be COMPLETELY wrong, not having read these books; Puthoff and Targ are veritable Icons in the field, but if they haven't RV'ed themselves, they could be the Pope for all that it matters to me).

I spent a lifetime being dismissed by folks without the slightest idea of what I was experiencing first hand, so I'm not overly eager to enrich anyone like them now by purchasing their postulations. I mean why would I - when I personally reject my own? (Again, your books' authors are excluded from that barb).

And, that, my friend, is all the more reason to cherish your insights, and those of all here. For the first time in my life, I've found my 'bretheren'.

Very Thought Provoking Topic,
larrywojo

 

[Just4fun]

Again, I recommend Dr. Christine Hardy's book Networks of Meaning because she talks about the information matrix as it relates to how our minds operate. She discusses how the things in our minds are related to each other by associations of meaning. So when your mind "free associates", it moves from object to object via shared properties of the two objects. Any property of a thing can connect to any other thing that shares that property, whether it is some physical attribute, time, emotion or anything else our minds can percieve as a quality of an object. Dr. Hardy refers mental objects as "semantic constellations".

After over a years absense of viewing, I recently started again. I was a long break for sure, but a good one for me. There are many aspects to consider when first starting to view and certainly, many more after you get your feet wet. Once I realized that "hey! this %&*@* stuff really works", then the avid reading began, sifting the wheat from the chaf, figuring out, "well,what is I believe?" - what has the actual doing process proven to me? Working through my beliefs, adding & subtracting and modiying. So I spent a lot of time educating myself (thank you TKR) and just absorbing the info and letting it settle in until I no longer felt that remote viewing was "WOWWWWW !! I waited until I reacted to being able to view as easily and unemotionally as being able to brush my teeth, pour a glass of water..any and all the normal routine things that make up a day.

So now I start to view again after all this and Bingo! Just what is quoted above hit me right between the eyes...the free association! I've only submitted maybe 5 sessons into the galleries at this point and commented that I was trying something new...a new approach...which was the free association- in particular, in dealing with the AOLs. Labeling it as an AOL, but breaking down the components of the AOL's. I'm finding that this DEFINATELY works. I was originally taught that AOLs had no value...junk data ..don't pay attention to it. When doing my first sessions years ago, I noticed that my AOLs did seem to relate to the target, but being so new and taking the word of someone in the teacher capacity, I didn't work with the AOLs...now I do. As said in the material you posted, the data we get has value merely by being related another part of the puzzle. Having just hit on this concept, I now have to learn how to clean it up, fine tune it. I will learn how to do this by PUTTING EVERY PIECE OF DATA into a session...no matter how stupid or off the wall it seems. It's the feedback that will allow me, teach me, how & what to pay attention to regarding AOLs.

After having said all this, the short version would be that I agree that the free association is a very important concept and you did a great job Benton, of carrying the idea through with your good example of 'red'.

My longer version of agreeing included a little of the time off I took. I felt it important to mention because- it's a good thing to take a break from viewing every once in a while. It gives the mind the time to intregate what is being learned, it keeps a viewer 'fresh' and flexiable...not getting bound up in habits etc.

I look forward to more input on this topic. Tossing ideas against the wall to see what sticks is a great way to flesh out new perceptions.