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.