"Unrelated" information about a target

Maouk

New Member
Hi all,

Do you think it's possible to get an "unrelated" information about a target? Well, maybe "unrelated" is not the right word. An example: I did a RV session today. On S3, I drew a waxing crescent moon and just below it, a star. I didn't understand the connection until I saw the target: Mount Ararat. This mountain is in Turkey and there are a waning crescent moon and a star on Turkey's flag. Do you think it's possible the get that kind of information or it's just a coincidence?
 
Yes, you can definitely get symbolic information in a session. I've seen many many examples of it in my 13 years in the field.

I included some examples in my article in 8 Martinis, Issue 1, Remote Viewing from the Perspective of Embodied Mind, and I'm sure others here have examples to share as well.

Some viewers get mostly or possibly all literal data, but many others get symbolic / analogical / metaphorical data.

Jon
 

Slorri

Member
I agree.
It's likely that we get things associated to the target, and in various forms.

In theory, if it's fantasy that objectifies the feelings, then there's no guarantee how it turns out. Of course some say that fantasy is not allowed, it should be robotic, probably because they don't like the fantastic pieces of information. But probably it's more like that we should keep our fantasy in some kind of control.

It also depends on how we analyse the session:
A. What can this moon and star mean?
B. Is there a moon and a star visible at this target location? No. Then it's a miss.
 

Maouk

New Member
Slorri said:
It also depends on how we analyse the session:
A. What can this moon and star mean?
B. Is there a moon and a star visible at this target location? No. Then it's a miss.

The target was this -> http://armenianpages.com/ap-photos/Ararat/Brian%20McMorrow/ararat%202.jpg.
The only relationship I've found between the moon, the star and the mountain is the Turkey flag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Turkey.svg).
Well, there is always a chance that a moon and a star are on Noah's Ark... ;) (I'm just kidding, of course).
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
The unconsious will help you to understand the results. If your training in RV is not far enough your unconscious is not able to communicate with your conscious in a literal way (that needs to be trained). So it will switch to what is available to show you the answer - here in a metaphorical way.
 
Katz,

What do you base that remark on? It suggests that there is a lot of symbolic data early on (or isn't that what you mean).

My experience both as a trainee (along with ten or so other trainees, many sessions being shared), intensively over a period of months, and later as a trainer in TDS is that, depending on the viewer, you may get, from early on, all literal data or a mixture of symbolic/metaphorical and literal.

When remote viewing became public and for a number of years after that, you found very little if any discussion of symbolism, analogy, metaphorical data in remote viewing sessions on forums. It was as if all there was, was literal data. By the time I got involved (1999), TDS was indeed talking about such non-literal data, and since then there has been a lot more recognition of the existence of such data in sessions - and by experienced viewers.

This gets to the idea that there are different kinds of viewers. We still don't have a typology of viewers, and hardly anyone talks about that. (One whose work implies it is Lyn Buchanan, with the databasing of viewers' sessions that he/they do so they know how accurate a viewer is with various kinds of target material.) Some viewers have a strong "conceptual" bent (Pru's term) or a metaphorical/symbolic/analogical, even allegorical, streak in them. Others are almost or entirely "literal".

Further on this, I found this in the Stargate archives:

"'Symbolism' is an incorrect word to use in analyzing the data; since it connotes repressions or associations involving the subject's psychological make-up; or the subject's unconscious desire to sublimate impressions. None of the experiments I have studied here involved either the need to probe the subject's psyche, or the need to translate from one level of abstraction to a lower level. Rather, the processes that occur are simple extrapolations and analogies. The need is for an understanding of the subject's vocabulary background and speech patterns, rather than an assessment of his values and attitudes. Obviously, for a more emotional set of targets, the psychological assessment may be necessary." ("Objective Assessment of SRI Visit"; author not indicated, early 1970's)

This and other articles indicate that literal data, data that plainly and directly described targets, is what was of interest to SRI and what was apparently generated in the main. I have found very little material (so far) discussing symbolic interpretation of session data in these archives. Nor is there, I believe, any mention of same in either of the CRV manuals nor the Langford training proposal from those days. In other words, from all appearances, literal data was preponderant with the SG investigators and trainees, with symbolic data getting very little attention. Of course, they were interested in literal data for the "dark arts of the CIA" (Targ phrase).

Further on the above quote with regard to non-literal data:

A strong distinction is made there between symbolism and analogies, claiming that one reflects the a) subject's psychological makeup or b) "subconscious desire to sublimate impressions". The latter (b) sounds like it was strongly influenced by Freudianism and sounds less than convincing today. In the field of RV, it's my impression that more now feel that Jung rather than Freud helps us better understand the subconscious. (I read recently that Ingo Swann believed that "archetypes" were an important key to remote viewing.) The former (a), psychological makeup, applies to analogies as well as symbols. What is the evidence for saying that "the processes that occur are simple extrapolations and analogies"? Maybe that is what the sessions they had at that time suggested or maybe it is an unsubstantiated claim. By now there are many sessions that show far more than "simple extrapolations and analogies" - both verbal and graphic. With regard to the last sentence in the quote, it is true that the more one knows about the viewer, the more one can accurately interpret their sessions, and this can involve psych testing, what the viewer has produced in previous work seen against the objectives/targets and other measures.

Jon
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
Well, it is my observation of different RVers, their sessions and their development. Maybe a very simplistic view. :-\
On the other side I always tried to overcome such "symbolic data" by pure training - and dissatisfaction with such results. I wanted literal data.

I observed a progress to much more literal data than symbolic data by demanding more to be satisfied with my own results. Also I observed that many RVers are happy with their symbolic data - thinking that's RV and they are not demanding themselves for more literal data. Maybe it has to do with an attitude of having fun by interpreting symbolic data. In literal data its hard to see what you want to get - instead you see whats there for a fact. So this is in my opinion also a psychological phenomenon... and you are correct: I can't say for sure that anyone who builds up more RV experience does get automatically more literal data - I think it also needs to be demanded!

But its also my observation that beginners tend to get more symbolic data than more experienced RVers.

RV is 90% psychological driven...
...and 10% psychologic. ;D
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
Well you ignore symbolic data at your own peril. ;D
Katz is right in that if you don't EXPAND on symbolic data bits you won't get enough or specific data required However that does take practice and skill.

You also need to do longer sessions if your the symbolic type as well as learn how to differenciate between symbolic and literal data.

For example Joe McMoneagle did a recent session for me which will feature in a forthcoming book. Without going into too much detail he got 100% symbolic data to a query he had about the target he was working, when he probed further for the literal meaning or feeling behind that symbolic piece of information he came up with a TON of specific and direct data about the target.

Had he just stopped at the symbolic stage the session would have made no sense at all or would be open to interpretation by analysts. You can see how disastrous that could be if one applied the same situation to ARV ;D
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
I tend to get less than 0.1% symbolic data in my RV style -but there again CRV is a no nonsense, 'report it as it is' method of remote viewing with no real room for symbolic data. Which is why I sometimes add a new stage on the end of the 6 stage CRV process called freeform whereby I then allow symbolic data if there are any to come through in an ERV style way of viewing. But doing this I'm in a totally different frame of mind than when I am CRVing.

Personally i believe the symbolic data gets int he way as there needs to be a translation process involved - and different things mean different things to different people. Its why i stopped being a psychic and clairvoyant and became a trained remote viewer - but each to their own.

It depends on how you want to go - do you want a viewer to hand you a picture of a rose - for you to interpret into the target meaning or do you want a viewer to hand you a sheet of paper with annotated ACTUAL sketches of the target from various angles. I know what I prefer from my experience of using and training for years in both symbolic and non symbolic psi data :)

Daz
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
Daz said:
Personally i believe the symbolic data gets in the way as there needs to be a translation process involved - and different things mean different things to different people. Its why i stopped being a psychic and clairvoyant and became a trained remote viewer - but each to their own.

Which is why everyone is different. Ive seen probably 90% of crv sessions done over the years where viewers have symbolic data and then go on successfully to describe the target. Ive always been told all data is relevant. Its upto the viewer and their method to flesh out the specific target data. Yep it can get into the way only if you let it which is why there should be emphasis on training and practice. If CRV produced no symbolic data at all I would expect a consitently high degree of accuracy 98%. This is why its good to go over bad sessions (everyone has them no exceptions) and check out the where and when your data went south. I suspect there will be more than a few symbolic referernces in those bad sessions.
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
Tunde said:
Without going into too much detail he got 100% symbolic data to a query he had about the target he was working, when he probed further for the literal meaning or feeling behind that symbolic piece of information he came up with a TON of specific and direct data about the target.
I've experienced that it depends on the target. If there is a type of target that my unconscious "produce" only symbolic data (not places or objects but intentions or such things) I can probe those for the literal meaning - but sometimes that gives me a TON of information cut in pieces and I have a very hard time to fit all of those together - getting lost in all the details. I assume the unconsious is trying to give me the most compacted answer - sometimes it can't give the literal meaning because of all of the details around which I wouldn't understand.

I think the unconscious is trying to help to understand a target and if giving literal data can't satisfy that need it gives symbolic data. Thats why I think its very important to probe and train and push themselves further and further to learn (the conscious) what this and that unsconsious impression means. Like learning a new language. The conscious has a clear understanding what a lamp is - which impressions lead to the conclusion "lamp". But the unconscious impressions are different - parallel and not linear. So there is a different impression for a lamp in the unconscious than in the conscious. The conscious needs to learn that specific impression of the unconscious about a lamp.

See Ingos article about Hella Hamid viewing a nuclear reactor and describing a tee kettle.
But theres more behind symbolic data than only describing what you don't know (yet). Its easier to get symbolic data than literal because the unconscious has much more possibilities to bundle different impressions together - so its also a part of laziness or lack of concentration when getting symbolic data.

The body is trying to save energy at best. Thats why working is boring - and sleeping so easy. ;D
Thats why concentration and learning new things is hard and laziness makes so much fun. :p
Getting symbolic data in RV doesn't need much concentration or work/training than getting literal data...
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
katzenhai2 said:
Tunde said:
Without going into too much detail he got 100% symbolic data to a query he had about the target he was working, when he probed further for the literal meaning or feeling behind that symbolic piece of information he came up with a TON of specific and direct data about the target.
I've experienced that it depends on the target. If there is a type of target that my unconscious "produce" only symbolic data (not places or objects but intentions or such things) I can probe those for the literal meaning - but sometimes that gives me a TON of information cut in pieces and I have a very hard time to fit all of those together - getting lost in all the details. I assume the unconsious is trying to give me the most compacted answer - sometimes it can't give the literal meaning because of all of the details around which I wouldn't understand.

I think the unconscious is trying to help to understand a target and if giving literal data can't satisfy that need it gives symbolic data. Thats why I think its very important to probe and train and push themselves further and further to learn (the conscious) what this and that unsconsious impression means. Like learning a new language. The conscious has a clear understanding what a lamp is - which impressions lead to the conclusion "lamp". But the unconscious impressions are different - parallel and not linear. So there is a different impression for a lamp in the unconscious than in the conscious. The conscious needs to learn that specific impression of the unconscious about a lamp.

See Ingos article about Hella Hamid viewing a nuclear reactor and describing a tee kettle.
But theres more behind symbolic data than only describing what you don't know (yet). Its easier to get symbolic data than literal because the unconscious has much more possibilities to bundle different impressions together - so its also a part of laziness or lack of concentration when getting symbolic data.

The body is trying to save energy at best. Thats why working is boring - and sleeping so easy. ;D
Thats why concentration and learning new things is hard and laziness makes so much fun. :p
Getting symbolic data in RV doesn't need much concentration or work/training than getting literal data...

I agree pretty much with everything you just wrote :)

T
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
If CRV produced no symbolic data at all I would expect a consitently high degree of accuracy 98%

Well, i dont know where you get the magic number of 98% accuracy or why non symbolic data would magically reduce every other factor that affects and can impede RV, like various overlays, bad targets, bad tasking, other variables (LST, Solar, geomagnetic, viewer based Psychological and environment based) and many other things - but CRV can be consistently highly accurate - mine is.
 

MadManMal

New Member
The thing is though and please take what i say as a novice...would it not be the case that some people get more symbolic data than others...Daz for example explains he gets very little ...while it seems i get some in most of the sessions i do . . a strong example would be the acorn i got representing the hindeburg event ... i described in that session as having a hella moment...but it came through so strong it just had to be relevant data. anothoer example would be the last practice session of Daz`s lunar landing where upon writing the Advanced perception where i got a mental picture of a yellow circle with a man in it and put Moon as the AP... only to fight my way through the session trying desperatly to shun off the idea of anything connected to the moon.
I dont know what to do about it . .do i learn to ignore them ? or embrace them when they manisfest? . .i really want to stay in "structure" but at times when i get a real strong feeling about having a very strange word pop out that is so out of fashion for the session they are hard to dismiss and often have meaning.
I guess everyone has their strengths and weaknesses.. some are better at colours, data ect...i for one feel good on data and less on sketches, however should i not use every tool that is provided, learn to create new ones, or both.
I understand that these symbolic data can hinder as well as help but i feel perhaps i should try to use them just as added info....what does everyone else think?

I know Joe Moneagle has views on reducing the crv but i dont think thats the way i should be heading and overal i am happy with my progress (thanks mainly to Daz)

Regards,
Mal
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
MadManMal said:
i really want to stay in "structure" but at times when i get a real strong feeling about having a very strange word pop out that is so out of fashion for the session they are hard to dismiss and often have meaning.
Don't dismiss info in a session! RV is the balance of accepting and let-it-be what you perceive. Well, you can go back later in a session and describe in more detail a specific perception, i.e. a symbolic impression. What it means - why it is there. There you go - and get more literal data out of it.
 

marty

Member
And what about information where the sub shows a real sense of humor. For example, I have attached a Target and an untrained musician's sketch which two judges saw as a clear match because of "mooning"? :)
 

Attachments

  • Mooning.jpg
    Mooning.jpg
    105.3 KB · Views: 3

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
what I have found is that the psychic channel is intelligent ans self aware to some degree. Intelligent enough to know 'how' to get info across to you the viewer or intuitive. it seems to know what can be communicated due to your knowledge and memories and then what doesn't fit this the process then seems to find alternative routes like symbology, phonetics and so on. It seems to know that its not the best route but better than no route.

Daz
 

Benton

Active Member
Staff member
All sorts of data related to the target but maybe not physically or experientially connected to the target is to be expected. Like others have noted, it happens all the time, its part of the process. I think it helps to ask specific questions and keep asking them, to keep pointing back to the target you want info on.
 
Top