pjrv : Messages : 1984-?0?4 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1984?? )
?
 ?3:36:31

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1984
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Thu Jan 9, ?003 7:11 am
Subject: Re: Breaking out AOLs 	greenmn900...



PJ,

Yeah, when you get feedback and you say to yourself, "Oh, I turned this low
hedge into a wall", or "I took this photo of a computer screen and turned it
into a TV"; stuff like that, you begin to realize what you are doing.  If you
can remain aware of the tendency to do this, then you can watch for it,
recognize aols, and then back-track to find what the exact impressions were
that led you to your conclusion (the aol? ).

I think of aols as kind of "getting ahead of myself", trying to rush the
process.  I have to force myself to take my time, be patient.  And at the
same time, be ready to pounce on any data that comes through immediately and
get it on paper before I let several perceptions come through and then
naturally start to add them up together in a way that seems to make sense.

While it's very valuable to learn to break out aols and then break them down
into their component perceptions (and I'm sure I'll always have to do this? ),
I try to avoid them in the first place by restraining my tendency to make
assumptions based on the perceptions.  I wish I was better at both.

Warm Regards,
Don

	
#1988
 	From: aeonblueau8008...
Date: Thu Jan 9, ?003 1:?9 pm
Subject: Re: Breaking out AOLs 	terri8008



Well.. after a few months of disciplined RVing the AOL should
disappear.(10-?0 sessions? ) It does.

The AOL goes away. It just doesn't come up any longer. Ask any of the fellas
(if their viewpoint counts any longer? ). It vanishes. I think it's the
practice or more to the point.. the habit, the lovely habit of becoming right
brained, or entrained, disciplined- a vanishing word.
I was not taught to give or lend  any sort of credit to AOL.
Now there are the very occasional "flash image" (grainy shadow land imagery? )
or the bi-location but both are quite rare.

I was chastised for any AOL, creamed for AOL drive (not to mention totally
embarrassed for my laziness basically and giving into it, and I KNEW I was
being lazy, basically pissed on my time, the monitors time and tasker, I was
a waste of time? )( I only gave into AOL drive once? )(once was enough? ) and as
I understand a  lot  of you are taught  with, or figure in.. I dunno, visual
stuff.

Visual was always a no no. RV was not taught as a bi-locatin technique nor
OOBE, it's quite different, even JoeM will tell you that.(an the why he
prefers RV? ) my understanding anyway the last time I listened to him.
RV IMO has nothing to do with visual. It's like ban the visual (physical? ),
wrap it up, shove it in a box set it aside, blind yourself, burry it, for the
most part it's entirely wrong.. you can make it fit yeah, but if it
constantly plagues you.. something's gone wrong. (IMO? )

What's an analysis,going to do with Terri's AOL a nd PJ's AOL.. and Bob and
John's AOL.... RV is not about interpretation. at least it didn't use to be.
(screw what the viewer "thought"? )

RV is more a descriptive knowing.. RV is not about I can name that target
site in one 15 minute session, with the kid fussing telly blaring dinner on
the stove top,for the most part you'll never ever be able to name it. 1 in ?0
possibly.. after a while 1 in 50.

my ? bits, all the best  ~~Terri

------------------------
Moderator's note: I always find it interesting, that in the same subject, same
field, allegedly generally the same process, we all live in such clearly
different realities.  There are sessions with little or no AOL and there are
more experienced viewers that have a lot less inaccurate and AOL data than they
used to, but I haven't yet met anybody that did 10-?0 sessions and had AOL just
'go away'.  For that matter I haven't met anybody who did 100-?00 sessions and
had AOL just 'go away'.  In fact that is so far outside my experience I had to
read that a few times, as I figured I had to be reading it wrong!

Essentially I've come to consider any incorrect data to be AOL (excepting when
for reasons unknown I truly believe I've viewed a wholly different target than
my feedback, whatever the cause? ).  So to me, AOL going away would essentially
mean that sessions were just accurate about everything all the time.  I have a
hard time imagining this.  But, that doesn't mean it can't be so!  PJ

	
#1990
 	From: "intuitwolf " 
Date: Fri Jan 10, ?003 1:59 am
Subject: Re: Breaking out AOLs 	intuitwolf



Terri wrote:
> Well.. after a few months of disciplined RVing the AOL should
> disappear.(10-?0 sessions? ) It does.
> The AOL goes away. It just doesn't come up any
> longer. Ask any of the fellas
> (if their viewpoint counts any longer? ). It vanishes.

Terri,

What fellas are you talking about? If you are talking about the
military fellas, I've seen sessions done by three of them --- recently
within the past year. Every one to a man contained AOLs.

Shelia

	
#1991
 	From: "intuitwolf " 
Date: Fri Jan 10, ?003 1:5? am
Subject: Re: Breaking out AOLs 	intuitwolf



> Don wrote:
> If you can remain aware of the tendency to do this, then you can
> watch for it, recognize aols, and then back-track to find what the
> exact impressions were that led you to your conclusion (the aol? ).

Backtracking can become very analytical; but there are ways to do it
after one is deeper into the session (never at the beginning of a
session? ). I say that because you don't want to do anything to pull
yourself deeper into anayltical thinking at the beginning of your
session. Best to just acknowledge those aols and move on at point. As
you say later, once you are deeper into the session your aols often
have more correspondence to the target and can actually be right on
the mark.

Recording data as an aol doesn't mean the data is being eliminated, or
disregarded, or assigned a lesser value. You're merely taking outside
of the main data flow - until Stage 4 (in CRV? ). It's higher order data
that prior to stage 4 may pull you into analytical thinking and thus
sidetrack your session with story-telling. So you acknowledge it, but
set it aside from the main flow of data.

If you are talking about reviewing a completed session and
backtracking an image to its core components for the purpose of
learning the images you produce and their correlations, even that will
have limited applicability to future sessions. Just as it's not
possible to have a set response for dream symbols because our personal
imagery is evolving, changing and realigning every day that we live,
so also every experience, sensation, etc. from everyday life is being
recorded, categorized, and linked in new and unique ways on a second
by second basis and in ways that you are not consciously aware of.

I don't think it will ever be possible to totally eliminate aol from
the process because there is so much pre-processing of data prior to
every image that arises into consciousness. My memories and life
experiences and dreams are all recorded and long before an image
begins to arise into consciousness in a session it has already been
associated to other 'like' images in my 'memory banks' in a search for
correspondence in order to present the image.

> I try to avoid them in the first place by restraining my tendency to
> make assumptions based on the perceptions.

Learning to use that part of the mind that can be a 'witness' and a
'scribe' and getting the 'judge' to ignore what you are doing is not
easy work. :-? )

Shelia

	
#1995
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Fri Jan 10, ?003 9:38 am
Subject: Re: Breaking out AOLs 	greenmn900...



Terri,

> You wrote:
> "Well.. after a few months of disciplined
> RVing the AOL should disappear.
> (10-?0 sessions? ) It does."

I've never heard that before from anyone.  If that's the case, than I don't
understand why the structure of CRV, which was supposedly stressed by Ingo
Swann as being all-important to identify and weed out aols, remains important
after the first 10-?0 sessions.  I know that for me, I've been Rving for
about 4 years and I still have to deal with aols.  I HAVE improved at
identifying them when they occur and I HAVE improved at stopping them from
occurring at a clearly conscious level, but they DO still happen.

You wrote:
> "I was not taught to give or lend  any sort
> of credit to AOL. Now there are the very occasional
> "flash image" (grainy shadow land imagery? ) or the
> bi-location but both are quite rare."

But they are not the same thing.  An aol is a result of the mind trying to
make sense of too few pieces of data, of "analyzing" the psychic perceptions
and coming up with a logical-seeming, but wrong, result.  A "flash image" or
bi-location are different from aols and are even different from each other.
A flash image is just another kind of perception, for some people it is the
most abundant kind.  Bi-location is the feeling that you are in two places at
one time, at the target site and also there at the location where you are
performing the RV session.

You wrote:
> "Visual was always a no no. [...] RV IMO has
> nothing to do with visual. It's like ban the
> visual (physical? ), wrap it up, shove it in a
> box set it aside, blind yourself, burry it, for
> the most part it's entirely wrong.. you can make
> it fit yeah, but if it constantly plagues you..
> something's gone wrong. (IMO? )"

I've also never heard that visuals are a "no-no".  But again, OBEs,
bi-location, and visuals in RV are all different things.  As an example: in
an OBE, if you see someone swinging a club at your head, you'll duck to avoid
getting hit.  It's that real.  All your senses are telling you that you are
in that environment.  You might feel a slight need to duck in a bi-location
occurrence, as a reflex, but you will still realize that at least part of
you, especially the physical part, is NOT at the target site and is actually
back where you are doing the remote viewing session.  And a visual in RV is
just a perception of information that is delivered to you from your
subconscious in an imaging form.  It's no more or less likely to be right or
wrong than any other type of data, unless there is a difference that arises
from a personal predeliction.

Regarding visuals, I think it's important to note that Joe these days is
producing near blue-print quality, almost picture-like, reproductions of
target sites.  How can you sketch the target if you never get any visuals or
immediatley discard the ones you do get?

In the book "Opening to the Infinite" by Bryant and Seebach, Ingo Swann says,
"Basic imaging occurs long before words are learned to describe those images.
  Imaging, then, is closer and more intimately connected to the psychic
nucleus and the ESP core.  Any information derived psychically from the
second reality by the deeper self is first processed as imaging.  Later, in
the chain of interpretation, the images are translated into the language the
individual normally uses."

I don't understand why you say that, regarding the visual, "...for the most
part it's entirely wrong".  That has never been the case with me and I've
never heard of that being the case with others.  I DO know that static,
long-lasting visuals seem to be a creation of the imagination and so, are
usually wrong.  But flash-images, in my experience, are usually a
near-perfect representation of some element of the target, if not of the
entire target itself.  To me, they seem to be no more right or wrong than any
other kind of data.

Don

	#?000 	From: "Glyn" 
Date: Fri Jan 10, ?003 7:1? pm
Subject: RE: Breaking out AOLs 	gebega



Hi Don,

   Something you said in your mail to Terri..

> Regarding visuals, I think it's important to note
> that Joe these days is producing near blue-print
> quality, almost picture-like, reproductions of target
> sites.  How can you sketch the target if you never
> get any visuals or immediatley discard the ones you do get?

   Now how the heck does he do that? I'm not talking about the RV, but about
being able to *remember* an image in such detail.

   I have often practiced looking at photos in magazines for a second or two,
then immediately trying to draw what I have seen, but, well, to put it
bluntly, I my visual memory sucks :-? ).

   I guess practice could be the key, but maybe Joe has a brilliant  memory,
which would help a lot. When doing sketches in session I have often been so
frustrated at not being able to reproduce what I had 'seen'.

   I would be interested to hear how others get on with this?

   Regards,
   Glyn

--------------------------
Moderator's note: Even in the few example sessions the lab has made public, and
this was from many years ago, Joe's sessions were nearly at that point -- many
of his public demos, the producer has overlaid his sketch on a photo -- skeptics
have accused him of somehow having access to a feedback photo (though his
feedback was often the 'place' not the photo? ) and tracing it. -- PJ

	
#1999
 	From: aeonblueau8008...
Date: Fri Jan 10, ?003 11:17 am
Subject: Re: Breaking out AOLs 	terri8008



well.. I haven't read all the list mails yet, Dons I got.. I lost another
somehow,it's here somewhere..  just had a cable modem installed (and this
machine flys, yeah i know everyone has cable except me? ) and a new and i
suppose a better version of AOL installed on my computer which has me
confused as everything is back to front.. my mails and favorite places have
changed places top to bottom I mean,and a past comment from PJ about her
kitchen being half painted spurred me on to paint my house or finish it as I
had a new front door installed 6 months back and had never painted the
interior, so painted the door, then the entry then the ceiling, then all that
looked so good I've continued on thru out the house so all is helter
skelter.. anyway..

yeah I expected to catch flack and yes, I think we all
work in wildly different ways.
But the AOL does tend to vanish, the less you 'use' it. I only expect
problems or continuing AOL's from newbies.
It just doesn't come up(or in? ) any longer,(at best it's just an 'asside'? )
certainty it shouldn't plague you continuously.
  As someone said, Don I think turning a low hedge into a tall wall.. a mole
hill into a mountain or visa versa, by labeling it or forming it up in your
mind, the analytical process, AOL, shouldn't continuously be a problem in
session. I wasn't taught to go so far in session then 'tell' the monitor what
I had just taken aal that time and energy  describing. I wasn't taught to
declare and name that target.
Sometimes your only going to get so much off a site, sometimes it requires
retasking or movement if your stuck.. but visualizing or imagined or trying
to guess what your describing or where 'your at' usually leads to no good
data... for the run of the mill viewer.

work several sessions and just don't allow any AOL to come in, it's hard at
first but it gets easier and easier, becomes habit to not acknowledge the
left brain analyzing for you, just don't let it enter in.
The way I was taught, I was just in the dark for the most part didn't have a
friggin clue as to what I was doing, where I was at, most of my after session
guesses were way off base, so I quit guessing.
Feedback did usually bring the session-s together for me, and I would or
could then part with more data or information after that seemed to pertain,
as I never tell what all I get in session, i've always had that hang up,
prolly from getting yelled at.. or just fear of being wrong I suppose..

one question quickly..
Don wrote
"Regarding visuals, I think it's important to note that Joe these days is
producing near blue-print quality, almost picture-like, reproductions of
target sites. "
is there somewhere where Joe is posting sessions or are you just privy to
something special?

all the best ~~Terri.

	#?001 	From: "Glyn" 
Date: Fri Jan 10, ?003 7:0? pm
Subject: RE: Breaking out AOLs 	gebega



Hi Don,

> Yeah, when you get feedback and you say to
> yourself, "Oh, I turned this low hedge into a
> wall", or "I took this photo of a computer screen
> and turned it into a TV"; stuff like that, you
> begin to realize what you are doing.  If you
> can remain aware of the tendency to do this, then
> you can watch for it, recognize aols, and then
> back-track to find what the exact impressions
> were that led you to your conclusion (the aol? ).

It is so important to take the time to look for that sort of thing. We
tend to concentrate so much on looking for 'hits' that we can overlook
giving ourselves the feedback which perhaps is even more
important.....exactly where we went wrong.

   Regards,
   Glyn

	#?005
Date: Sat Jan 11, ?003 4:04 am
Subject: Re: Breaking out AOLs 	rfjuice?000



> glyn.flyers writes:
> I guess practice could be the key, but maybe Joe has a brilliant  memory,
> which would help a lot. When doing sketches in session I have often been so
> frustrated at not being able to reproduce what I had 'seen'.
>  I would be interested to hear how others get on with this?

Hi all,
        I think everyone has their own special areas of talent, and of course
Joe is excellent at this as usual.
        While I'm in session, I kind of keep a tally, "ok I have to remember ?
things, 3 things, etc."  Of course sometimes I do forget something, similar
to the feeling of a dream slipping away from you when you wake up in the
morning, but for the most part I can remember it. As far as replicating
details, that I have always been able to do, not pertaining to rv in
particular, but in general, growing up I used to enjoy duplicating the
comics, or trying to draw faces, etc.  So I don't have much difficulty in
that area.  But when it comes to recognizing emotions, temperatures and other
nonvisual data, I'm about as sensitive as a brick........

Take care,
Linda

	#?008 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Sat Jan 11, ?003 8:06 am
Subject: Re: Breaking out AOLs 	greenmn900...



Terri,

> You wrote:
> "Sometimes your only going to get so much off a
> site, sometimes it requires retasking or movement
> if your stuck.. but visualizing or imagined or trying
> to guess what your describing or where 'your at'
> usually leads to no good data... for the run of
> the mill viewer."

Please understand, I wasn't referring to any conscious attempt to try to get
visual information, it just happens.  For me, the vast majority of my data is
visual.  I don't "try" to get it that way, that's just the way it often comes
to me.  I guess we're all different.  I know some people get scents a lot.  I
seldom do.  A lot of people seem to get tactile sensations (like "rough", or
"hard"? ), but I seldom do.  For me, it's usually auditory, visual, emotional,
or just conceptual information.

> You wrote:
> "is there somewhere where Joe is posting sessions
> or are you just privy to something special?"

No, I'm not privy to anything special.  I was referring to a quote I've read
in the last couple years in, I think, two different places.  I can't remember
exactly where.  It may have been in Dale Graff's books "Tracks in the Psychic
Wilderness" and "River Dreams".  I'll see if I can find it for you.

But we don't have to rely on Joe alone for this kind of quality.  Look at
some of the "moments of clarity" sessions posted by hrvg.  I've had quite a
few myself.  Hell, my wife has only done around ? dozen sessions and in one
of her early ones, where the target was a photo of a girl suspended in the
air above a diving board, she sketched it almost perfectly, right down to the
girls' pony tail and the position of her arms.

> You wrote:
> " I wasn't taught to declare and name that target."

I don't know of anyone that tries to do that intentionally.  Although, it
does happen.  Sometimes, it just hits the Rver exactly what the target is,
especially if it's some kind of famous landmark or famous person.  But, I
know that when it happens to me, I'm not trying to do that intentionally.  I
know that attempting to do that only leads to missing the target most of the
time.

Best regards,
Don

	#?010 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Sat Jan 11, ?003 8:15 am
Subject: Re: Breaking out AOLs 	greenmn900...



Glyn

> You wrote:
> "  Now how the heck does he do that? I'm not
> talking about the RV, but about being able to
> *remember* an image in such detail."

Lol!  I have no idea!  It could be that he is sketching it as he goes, and
so, he doesn't really have to rely on memory that much when he finally tries
to put all the peices together.  Plus, it may only happen on certain, basic
targets (for example, I've seen quite a few sessions posted by different
people where the target was stonehenge and their drawings very closely
resembled the target? )  Also, I doubt if this is something that happens all
the time.

I was referring to something I've read in a couple places recently and now,
I'll be damned if I can find them.  I know I've got it in at least one book
here somewhere.  I've never seen these sessions myself.  I'm just going on
hearsay, but it's obviously nothing that outlandish.  Other people have done
sessions that were just of that quality.

> You wrote:
> "When doing sketches in session I have often been so
> frustrated at not being able to reproduce what I had 'seen'."

Me too.  That's one of my biggest problems.  The practice you mentioned,
looking briefly at a page from a magazine and then trying to recall it,
helped me alot.  I used to do that every day, for like 10-15 minutes at a
time.  It seemed to really help.  but I still have a problem with it.  I try
to get the impressions on paper as fast as I can, so I don't have to rely too
much on my lousy memory. lol!

Best Regards,
Don

	#?011 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Sat Jan 11, ?003 8:53 am
Subject: Re: Breaking out AOLs 	greenmn900...



Linda,

> You wrote:
> " While I'm in session, I kind of keep a tally,
> "ok I have to remember ? things, 3 things, etc."
> Of course sometimes I do forget something, similar
> to the feeling of a dream slipping away from you
> when you wake up in the morning, but for the most
> part I can remember it."

That's EXACTLY what I do!  I can't let it go past about 4 things or I start
to forget them.  After 3 or so bits of information, I open my eyes, and get
it on paper.  Then I close my eyes and continue.  Like you said, trying to
remember things you've forgotten is exactly like trying to remember a dream.
I was starting to think I was the only one who works this way!!

Best Regards,
Don

	#?013
Date: Sat Jan 11, ?003 4:?6 pm
Subject: Re: Breaking out AOLs 	a_healey56



Don and Linda,

I do the exact same thing also.  After losing all sorts of good data in lots
of RV sessions because I didn't want to open up my eyes or come out of the
state I was in, I finally realized it was better to surface and write down
good data than forget it (Don, lots of mine has always been visual too? ).
Like I always say, one accurate picture seems to almost always be worth a
million words (at least for the things we usually RV, and for the existence
we're in now? ).

Dave

	#?017 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Sun Jan 1?, ?003 4:07 pm
Subject: Re: Breaking out AOLs 	greenmn900...



Hi Dave,

I always RV laying on my back with my eyes closed.  I remember how, in the
early days, if I had to clear my throat or if a car honked its' horn a long
way off, it took me forever to get back into it.  lol!

And if I didn't have my head propped up enough on a pillow, saliva would
start to gather in the back of my throat, but I didn't want to swallow
because I thought that would take me out of the right state!  I laid there
getting half-strangled all the time !! lol!!

Then, I couldn't close the door and leave my dog out of the room because he's
start scratching on the door.  But if I left him in the room, inevitably,
he'd start making a low-growl at some noise he heard or start chewing a flea
bite something, making obscene noises!! ha-ha!!  I finally got over all that
stuff but it sure was hard there for awhile.

Best Regards,
Don

	#?0?4
Date: Tue Jan 14, ?003 ?:17 am
Subject: Re: Breaking out AOLs 	k9caninek9



> Don wrote:
> And if I didn't have my head propped up
> enough on a pillow, saliva would
> start to gather in the back of my throat,
> but I didn't want to swallow
> because I thought that would take me out
> of the right state!  I laid there
> getting half-strangled all the time !! lol!!

LOL, that's so funny!  Swallowing will kill it but getting strangled
was still conducive.  It's funny when you think about it.  Heck if
you can rv while choking to death, all the rest should be easy!
;-? )
-E