When you are totally wrong, what is the probable cause?

[Challe77]

When you are totally wrong in sensory descriptions that sometimes happen to me on practice targets does that mean that even through you think you have dispelled an aol its still there and overlaps and sometimes totally takes over a session? Or could there be other reasons for faulty data?

For example in my freehand sketch I put the X on a circle, and my sensory input for X indicated a lifeform, but it turned out to be the moon, so it seems I was still thinking, without noticing it, do you agree, any advice to get better at NOT thinking aside from more practice?

/Karl

 

[RedCairo]

Hi Karl,

I could answer this in 12 ways, but it sounds like you're talking about stage 1 level data so in that case:

1 - Probably the best thing to learn is not to attach so much to data at that point as target contact may not be well developed yet. It's important to not base any data in a view on data that came before in terms of 'matching the ideogram decoding' since otherwise, you're basing a whole view on the first couple minutes. One of the reasons for Swann's method having various processes like noting AOL, dropping the pen, etc. was intentionally to "let go" of the data, and be truly open to whatever may come after that (not filter/distort based on what you expect due to previous data).

Possibly less specific to your instance here, not sure:

2 - If you don't believe in chakras skip this point - it is my experience that where we focus "from" in our body is a big deal and focusing in the head tunes our attention to a frequency that is almost not but not exactly the reality we call "objectively real" (which happens at the lower chest level). Those perceptions can be accurate at-that-level but that is not the level we have to operate in, aside from viewing/dreaming/meditating.

3 - It's a given that there are 101 ways to be wrong, in terms of how we process things in our head both consciously and unconsciously, and in terms of how we process it during communication. But all those things we actually learn from and we can see -- sooner or later -- in retrospect. I do not consider any of those issues with target "acquisition" merely with the perception and describing of a target already acquired. It usually requires a viewer be experienced enough to feel like they know themselves and their experience before target acquisition starts becoming a worthy topic, because at that point they view 'specifically' enough, and often enough (experientially), to know the difference between issues that are acquisition-related versus description-related. Nobody can know what one's experience falls into except the viewer, on this question.

3b - Many years ago on my Red Cairo blog I wrote a blog post about the target acquisition topic (totally wrong data in what seems a consistently psi experience, but if it was, clearly not on the correct target). http://palyne.com/blog.redcairo/target-acquisition-errors/

Best,
PJ

 

[tbone]

Or maybe you were correct. I seem to remember PJ viewing a planetary body (one of Jupiter's moons maybe?) and getting vibes that it was conscious. Maybe there is a level of consciousness in everything that you tapped into. Hardly something that you can get get feedback for, though.

 

[RedCairo]

Yeah, that was Ganymede
http://palyne.com/blog.redcairo/ganymede/

Those were both 2008 posts. Oh man!! I do realize that I pretty much spent 2006-2016 dying to increasing degrees, then the next few recovering, where I am now, but am doing well. And I do realize that thanks to the heart sitch, and low O2 to brain/body so long, my memory is... creatively fuzzy (or fuzzily creative!) at best. But still, I CAN'T BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN THAT LONG!

My kid was 11 years old then. She is now 22 and due to have a baby this September. OMG!!

PJ

 

[Challe77]

thanks for the comment, I think It was my aol drive that took over this time, although Its possible there are aliens on the moon, the latest farsight video suggests that there are old alien structures there...

 

[Glenda]

I think that it is good to make mistakes. Basketball players practice over and over to hit the target. We learn and grow. We should not get lazy, but we should learn that mistakes cannot cripple us from learning to view. It is not very different, just a different science. Physical good health matters in both. I was told in person. I rolled my eyes or course.

 

[tbone]

Maybe some more feedback from Ganymede soon.

NASA mission to get up close with Jupiter moon — the largest in the solar system | NewsChannel 3-12

The largest moon in our solar system is preparing for its first close-up in more than 20 years on Monday.NASA's Juno mission has been observing Jupiter

keyt.com

 

[RedCairo]

Oh look at that! Thanks tbone. Cool! I hope we get a lot more data about Ganymede.
Since that time when I had that view and wrote that blog post, my internal cosmology has expanded a great deal, so I'm no longer surprised by a moon or planet seeming like an identity. It was pretty novel an idea (and experience) at the time, though!
PJ

 

[katzenhai2]

When you are totally wrong in sensory descriptions that sometimes happen to me on practice targets does that mean that even through you think you have dispelled an aol its still there and overlaps and sometimes totally takes over a session? Or could there be other reasons for faulty data?

For example in my freehand sketch I put the X on a circle, and my sensory input for X indicated a lifeform, but it turned out to be the moon, so it seems I was still thinking, without noticing it, do you agree, any advice to get better at NOT thinking aside from more practice?

/Karl

Sounds like you are using TRV. I also sometimes describe a lifeform and from all the data (even S2, S4 etc) it looks it must be one, but then it was something round, a structure or whatever. There seems to be a stimulus that my decoding interpretated as a 'lifeform', maybe because of its movement or other related things. I don't think that a living being can or should be interpreted ("Ganymede is alive" ), especially since I have clear, unambiguous (photo-)feedback where such errors are excluded.

I also have done sessions describing a round-shaped structure and then its a lifeform.

Imho thats part of our internal decoding process, how we perceive the stimulus/signal. I also found out it depends on the target (not itself but what it represents in terms of feedback). Sometimes the lifeform is overrepresented and it is perceived more strongly in a session, from a different (conceptual-)perspective. I do several long-term sessions per week and even then my data gets distorted but I can handle that better now with much practice.

 

[katzenhai2]

3b - Many years ago on my Red Cairo blog I wrote a blog post about the target acquisition topic (totally wrong data in what seems a consistently psi experience, but if it was, clearly not on the correct target). http://palyne.com/blog.redcairo/target-acquisition-errors/

Best,
PJ

Interesting read! I also tend to think there IS some target aquisition (sometimes) and it wasn't pure AOL - it feels the same like the correct session results but it doesn't fit to the feedback. Its not often but also puzzles me whats going on here.

In addition to the sessions that do not fit because you later randomly retroactively set another target as a target (unconsciously) and somehow completely "bend" the session. This phenomenon seems to be VERY much more common and there is a pattern, but somehow NO ONE else seems to be aware of it or to understand it in this context. What kind of scares me because I think: "I can't be the only one who notices that !?". I will write about that in an own thread next time.

From your blog article:
"As psychics, viewers aren’t any more or less accurate than psychics throughout time [...]"

This can't be underlined and bolded too much!! Full Ack!

 

[RedCairo]

because you later randomly retroactively set another target as a target (unconsciously) and somehow completely "bend" the session.

Yep that's it -- you're not alone in seeing that, I've been talking about that for probably 20+ years. I did a quick search on my meditation blog (though it doesn't have a ton of RV stuff on it, only some) and found a post from 2013 where I'd written this:

...people instantly retask themselves after impressions. They get an impression of a corner or metal and they unconsciously retask themselves on corners or metal in trying to figure it out. The brain does this naturally. It is almost like an intuitive writing exercise, though: you need to hold the focus of the original question, and let the rest come through you to answer it, and you can observe it, but you have to let it flow like you let reality flow on good days; you can’t interfere with it, because you shift the focus when you do, and then you end up with stuff all over the place, much ‘related but not the same focus.

This is one reason the 'drop the pen' in Ingo's CRV is important. Because you can 'move on' at the surface, sure, but if you cannot get your physiology-psychology to truly release or "let go" of an idea, it's like it just drops under the surface of the water, hanging from your boat like an additional rudder, shifting the direction of the flow of energy and the movement of your craft. OK maybe I'm getting a tad poetic in the way that's presented haha, but I think it amounts to that. This can happen at the single-impression level, but it can also happen at the "insidiously-subtle-AOL" level -- especially the worst sorts that are not so much in the data, as the viewer's influences from other sources, like when knowing the tasking source adds even subtle expectations.

"Unconscious retasking" is probably the primary problem (next to misaquisition) in most viewing.

 

[katzenhai2]

Oh. Yeah. What you are describing is very common. You talk about in-session-perceptions like [Lifeform] and then you describe the lifeform. The impression "old" comes to mind and then you unconscioulsy describe "old" and shift the focus away of the lifeform per se. Well, I tend to think now I can control that. And make use of it.

But what I meant above is something different:
You have a tasking. You describe a target in good detail (well, to say the truth: remarkable good!). Then you have a look on the tasking and say:
"No. Thats not my target! What the hell is going on?". Several days or weeks later you make an experience exactly like you had in your session. And your focus is spot-on on this experience because its highly emotional. And also because you RVed it: You immediately think about your session.

It looks like a re-tasking of a session you have done days or weeks earlier. But there is no special connection between your session and this event - you described it extremely well and with all glory, but thats it. But one thing is totally noticeable: whenever that happens, the session is extremely clear! One asks oneself in the session: "Are these all AOLs? Why am I describing such clear impressions? I have never had such... how strange. Its either one of my best sessions or a big failure".

There is also no doubt that the session described exactly the later event. Because it happens so clearly and rarely what happens on the day of the event. It is also noticeable that these sessions only occur when the event is "special, rare and spontaneous".

I've experienced this so often that I now think: Every session works exactly this way: Retrotasking! Or maybe its all out of the memory of the Analyst?!

If you look at the experiences McMoneagle describes in his book "Mind Trek". When you look at how they did the experiments at the SRI with Hella Hammid. Read Ingo Swann's book, Natural ESP: These descriptions are full of "special, rare, spontaneous" events. Even if they were part of the tasking. And it just so happens that these are the best sessions, which of course they don't hesitate to release.

There is an odd phenomenon going on and nobody recognize its implication. I see it now everywhere in every single story about RV after experiencing it myself. But nobody else seems to think its important or realise its effects.

 

[RedCairo]

Glyn and I have been having a monster-long email conversation about ARV and specifically, Dunne's Future Memory (FM) theory. She holds to it more than I do. I think it's valid, just not 100% of what's possible as a data source.

I've long said that viewers "view to validation." And that feedback is not validation unless one makes it so. And that feedback is not the "dominant" sense of validation compared to other elements unless one makes it so. If feeling like you discovered something interesting and secret (an alien on that bridge!), or matching someone else's data point, or getting positive response from someone who sees the view (which might be your tasker or analyst), carries more weight with -- is more validating to -- a viewer, then that will be their feedback -- indirect or not -- and usually whatever affects the emotions is what wins the validation contest.

One reason I say "novelty" is important in viewing is because it is usually the trigger for sessions we talk about or remember most, later, as it sparks new experience. How much our doing that later impacts the experience we had to begin with... well probably a ton, but my brain starts crunching on the catch22 of cause/effect.

 

[blueapple]

I actually found my old ID and password, and after getting a warning just changed it.
yes, Viewing to validation is very…err valid. There is the intended feedback (Intended by Tasker, whether yourself or someone else), and there is the all the other stuff that may be in our memories in the future at the time of the session, which also of course, contain our memories of the past. Anything connected to the session we are doing. Some of which may be shining bright to us, and agreed, especially if there is emotional impact.

Amazing subject, gets the mind in absolute twists.

Glad to be back.

 

[RedCairo]

I see the facebook thread finally picked up. We are also discussing this topic there, for those interested: https://www.facebook.com/groups/207158609619251/posts/1519716085030157/

 

[RedCairo]

Glyn I saw this ref the other day. Jane Roberts as Seth is one of my favorite writers for all things esoteric. (Steinbrecher felt that Seth was Jane's 3rd House guide, which I would call an Aeon in my own life.)

I'm currently rereading The Early Sessions Vol 5 and have just cpme across some fascinating references and analogies Seth is making linking his own ideas to those presented by two authors whose books Jane was reading... Priestly and Dunne are the names he refers to

Now I'm going to have to dig up that book and read it just to see what he said about Dunne!