pjrv : Messages : 1673-1673 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1673?? )
?
?3:15:??
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#1673
Date: Sun Dec 8, ?00? 10:05 am
Subject: Future Memory dennanm
Howdy Glyn,
I'm posting this on the list in case others have comments, since we
began the conversation here eons ago.
> his dream of the future was not of the island,
> not of the event itself......but of the newspaper
> article he first saw.....not only that either...
> he had dreamed of his *memory* of reading the
> article; which included his mistake of misreading
> the number as 4,000! He had accessed his 'future
> memory'.
I think it is likely that his dream included *many* elements of
information. E.g., for him to have accessed his future memory, which
is utterly probable and in fact the most likely explanation, that
still doesn't give the detail of the volcano and Island he perceived
right off the bat. You might say he 'dreamed' that based on the
feedback, but that could as easily apply to the wrong number as to
the island part!
I suspect psi data is *dominantly* future memory -- or "precognition
with a heavy lean toward self as primary source" -- but there might
be concurrent things going on, on top of that; particularly when you
consider the myriad of psi info we never get any feedback on that is
allegedly going on currently to us 'somewhere' but who the heck knows
where.
I used to have a lot of precog dreams but most were wrong, lol. BUT
they were wrong in the way like, how psychics often mix right and
left; they often contained obvious precog elements yet were totally
flipped or reversed.
Like one time I dreamed about this kinda trashy female rock star I
wasn't remotely interested in. I wrote in my journal that
she "looked at me like I ought to know" and then shot herself in the
head. OK, weird. But a month later her extremely famous husband,
Curt Cobain, allegedly shot himself in the head. (How he managed to
do this with the very long gun utilized is a subject of some
controversy - but I haven't got a clue, and I assume it truly was
suicide.? )
Another time, in mid '95 I think it was, I had a dream that I was in
a room with a TV and another person, and I heard myself say, "DOLE is
president?!" and the other person said, "Yeah, he won." The election
was on TV. When I woke up, the only thing of note to me was that as I
didn't watch or hear the news, I had no idea who the guy even WAS.
It turned out he had not even announced he would run yet. Later he
left his gov't position to campaign for president. As I was so
oblivious to politics I felt this must be so. Yet he didn't win.
I mentioned these before on this list --
In both cases I clearly was picking up on something that came to be
in the news, so very 'psychic broadband' as I call it - lots of
people 'aware' of it. Yet my facts were totally reversed from what I
heard later. I assume that for some unknown reason I just reversed
things on memory.
I've probably had three dozen dreams like that at least, I just
haven't bothered to write them down. The one thing it did do for me
is make me a lot less worried when I seem to have a dream of
something frightening in the near future. I know how my memory tends
to torque such things.
> I think results depend on how far you go into
> your own future to access your own memory of the
> event/feedback/outcome... and at what stage in
> the future you retrieve the memories. (eg. If
> Dunne had gone forward 15 years he may have got
> the right number :-? )? ).
Hmmmmn. OK now this is a point of consideration, I don't know. I
don't know that we retrieve our memory at a given stage of the
future. In order to believe that, I would have to believe that we do
NOT have direct access to our future EXCEPT at some given point
we 'went to' for information, which doesn't really make sense to my
mind, as it infers a sort of linear access that is pretty much as
limited as the pseudo-electronic 'signal line' theory you are trying
to discard and work around. Either time is real or its not; either we
have access to it or we don't; I have a hard time conceptualizing in
my brain the logic of us only going to one point in time for
ourselves; how is that much different than going to the single point
of a target as a physical 'place' I wonder; both infer a sort of
linearity or exclusionary awareness.
I would suspect we have full and equal access to all the memory at
all points of the future, and that it is mostly a matter of what
is 'strongest' as our feedback, and perhaps for some reason that is
often (not always but often? ) what is most immediate or closest to the
point of perception - "if all things are equal" -- by that I mean,
emotional strength probably matters more than time, but who knows....
for the most part the most immediate feedback is likely strong.
Not because that future is closer if there is no linear time, but
maybe we tend to perceive such energy more strongly -- one
metaphysical source suggests that all is energy and our perception of
things being past/present/future is actually based on the intensity
of the energy we perceive, e.g. the strongest energy is the 'now' and
as it fades it seems farther in the past, etc.
I do know that feedback is often critical to psi results, but that
sometimes I've done RV sessions I assumed totally missed the target
and moved on, and then much later realized they were actually pretty
good sessions and I was just so quick to be overcritical of myself
that I didn't hardly pay attention to the feedback vs. session other
than the first surface glance. Obviously my primary feedback didn't
influence the session much, but then again, my point is I barely paid
attention to the feedback, so my review a couple months later with a
great deal more attention may have had more impact on the session
just due to the quality/quantity of my attention.
> This may be particularly important in ARV if
> going after outcomes of events...eg football
> results.....you must make sure you don't just
> get the score at half-time:-? )..
LOL. I think... well, I don't have an opinion but I have a theory,
that we exist in so many times/places/identity at the same times,
including a lot of 'parallels' to what we call reality -- and
possibly even a nearly infinite set of reality that is 'here' but
with variants that we constantly move in and out of (the real way of
saying that isn't that there are lots of realities but that every
probability is a potential and every human being puts those together
like choices made in a video game as I wrote many years ago; that
consensus reality doesn't exist, only a consensus that we will only
observe the reality of others who mostly share what we consider
real? ), it becomes difficult to assume there is only one answer, one
reality, one option, one future for that matter.
McMoneagle seems to work very hard on a rather unique belief system
that deliberately 'closes the loop' between him and the target, where
every target is the ONLY target worked, the only POSSIBLE target,
etc. -- that every thing which happens, although *up until it happens
there is free will*, still, WHEN it happens, is *destined to have
happened*, that is a bit contradictory on the surface but I remember
author Jane Roberts talking about that as well. As if he is so aware
of the alternatives that he deliberately designed a psychological
structure to *pointedly exclude* all that. Like in order to do so
well at targets not yet chosen or that haven't happened it's partly
because he deliberately believes there IS only ONE choice and that
one choice is whatever happens. There aren't any other options. It
seemed like there were, but in reality, there weren't, the option
which happened was utterly destined to happen. And in a strange way
this is likely so but it requires going back into the discussion of
the creation of personal reality which is a little outside the future
memory subject.
I've also noticed how specifically he reinforces with himself
constantly that feedback is merely what is 'assumed' at that
given 'moment' in time - never taking it too literally. As if he's
had so much experience with feedback being wrong, or changing, and
knows that 'believing' it can torque his session to match the
feedback rather than the target.
(Or for all we know, the feedback if believed can cause us to
perceive the literal/real probability where {X} WAS the case; the
session wasn't wrong or invented, we merely accessed the wrong
probability, if that makes sense.? )
Somewhat off this topic but related to the above, McMoneagle is the
one who has always said that a viewer's job is to describe what is
most important or relevant: of course, it takes being psychic to know
that, but we assume psi is the case or why are we here. ;-? ) Tasking
and feedback of course have their importance and benefits as well as
dangers, but that in the end, the viewer is self-tasking to some
degree, at least in this regard; not necessarily to replace tasking
but to supplement or emphasize it.
> I first I thought that this must mean that
> we only view the feedback (or rather our
> memory of seeing the feedback, and everything
> attached to the original feedback of a target;
> ie webpages, discussions etc...it is all part
> of the cumulative memory? ), but people have
> reported bilocation and experiences of *being*
> at the site, so how does that fit in? Well,
> anyone who has had a lucid dream will attest
> to how wonderful the brain is at putting
> together 'universes' of it's own creation and
> immersing you in them. It could also do this
> with a memory, and if the memory is based on
> fact then the `immersion' would appear real.
This could be so. I think part of me resists it, though; wants to
believe that when I experience something clearly or even just
possibly related to the site, that I really am tuning into the site,
the people there at any given time (but perhaps mostly strongly
around the time of feedback? ), etc. But that could be an ego thing,
the wanting to believe; it is not impossible that we in fact do
create our "sense of reality" at targets in a dream-like fashion.
But first I have to say, I am not necessarily of the opinion that
lucid dreams are merely the paintings of the mind. I believe that
there are points of perception in which reality is simply more
easily 'flowing' than it is here, and they are a valid existence at
that point of perception which we choose to remember on awakening.
THIS life may well be a dream that is simply not lucid for any but a
few buddha types.
It's possible that we create our "sense of reality" in LIFE in a
dream-like fashion too. Which would mean that it really makes no
difference at all whether that is the case; that this is simply how
we as a species interpret and experience energy... in other words, it
would not matter in that case whether we 'went to' the target
or 'created the target around us' since technically, whether
physically or psychically, both would be the same thing!
Years ago I had a rather interesting experience. I was driving down
the highway between Camarillo and Ventura CA and there were hills
(small mountains? ) off to the side and it was a pleasant enough drive
for that space. And suddenly I became aware of something that sounds
a little bizarre:
I became aware that I WAS aware of 'all'. That nothing was moving...
my car was not really in 'motion'. That I was deliberately choosing
to narrow my perception down first to the wide-view environment; and
the nearby environ; and also to the immediate in-my-car environment;
that technically, I and my car were as much everywhere as anywhere,
both in space and in time, and I was choosing to "experience" myself
in my car and my car moving, because it was FUN.
You know like with a reel of film, technically, the whole film
already exists, and everything is still frames. But that is no fun!
It almost seems like it is the nature of CHANGE that humanity most
experiments with. Well it felt a bit like that; like I was truly
aware of everything at once, we all are, but for the pleasure of it,
we choose to 'narrow our focus' in to one frame at a time, and then
run our attention through the frames fast enough to give a 'sense of
motion' NOT ONLY TO SPACE, such as my belief that I in my car was
driving down the highway, BUT TO TIME, because I realized at that
moment, there IS NO space without time, or time without space. This
is difficult to explain and gets into subjects beyond future memory
so I won't go on, but that was what I got from the experience. But
my very clear sense was that both space and time were sort of like
one utterly unspace/untime thing and we were simply choosing to
perceive ourselves "moving through" both because that is the fun of
it.
Later that day I thought of this film I had seen that shone bright
lights into gems, a close up camera thing. And I had been watching it
and thinking to myself, the odd thing is, it seems sometimes as if
there are worlds inside those gems. But since there is no motion, how
could anything actually be anything but inanimate/still-
consciousness? I realized that we MIGHT really be in a gem, who
knows. Now I have a better visual, that movie "MIB", where the
galaxies were in marbles. :-? ) Even here, nothing is actually in
motion. We move our *perception* -- nothing else 'moves'.
Which sort of brings me back into my theory of the 'spectrum' of our
consciousness and how we simultaneously perceive all, but remember
one, and "attention" is the actual moving point. I guess that was
really what it boiled down to for that experience as well.
> FM explains so much IMO.... for example why
> things are so vague, unclear, distorted...
Why does it explain that, in your perception?
> that there appears to be overlay, associations, AOL...
Why does it explain that, in your perception?
> what real memories are uncluttered? Especially
> over time, they pick up all sorts of baggage,
> and even become totally distorted to the point
> of being false...
True - and most people have no idea the extent of this; keeping a
journal one rereads years back can make some of this more clear.
Memory is fickle to the point of being a creative invention all its
own. Either that, or reality is so changeable even backward in time
that the past is nearly irrelevant compared to what we believe about
the past; or even, non-existent except as perceived from the now.
> Ah but who's to say we can't access someone
> else's future memories? Does Dunne's theory
> allow for that? I can't remember...
I think in the way that we perceive being in one space and moving
through many spaces, and one time point and moving through many
times, that we also perceive being in one identity and moving through
many lives. And maybe even every'thing'.
In short, it's all us. We are aware, but the degree to which we
allow ourselves to accept that, remember it, communicate it, is
another story, I suppose.... and surely that is where all the
questions related to RV come in...
Regards,
PJ
pjrv : Messages : 168?-1736 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/168??? )
?
?3:19:?1
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#168?
Date: Mon Dec 9, ?00? 9:47 am
Subject: Re: Future Memory jsentient
Hi Paylne,
> But that could be an ego thing,
> the wanting to believe; it is not
> impossible that we in fact do
> create our "sense of reality" at
> targets in a dream-like fashion.
Sorry, I've been quiet on the list. I had today off, a rare event -- and
decided to see how Oasis is doing. I am sure I am breaking in mid stream on
this thread but something you said reminded me of a line I just heard while
passing thru my living room. The TV was on and the Movie "Santa" was on,
(about half way thru near as I could figure? ). I think that is the title, not
sure,,,,it stars Tim Allen. IMO it sucks, what little I saw of it. Anyway,
at one point (during the few minutes I was in the room? ) Tim is reluctantly
discussing his new role to become Santa with an elf. He finds himself in
toyland at the North Pole and says " I see it, but I don't believe it".
The elf replies "You are missing the point, seeing isn't
believing,,,believing is seeing".
Really, I think it's bigger than that, but that line kind of stuck out for
me. Subjectivity is troublesome.
Don't you think :? )
J
#1683
Date: Mon Dec 9, ?00? 7:37 pm
Subject: Re: Future Memory dennanm
Hey, it's Jay, good to see you buddy, long time.
> The elf replies "You are missing the point, seeing isn't
> believing,,,believing is seeing".
> Really, I think it's bigger than that, but that line
> kind of stuck out for me. Subjectivity is troublesome.
I'm finding even objectivity troublesome today, LOL.
On the thread title, ya know, if 'future memory' were the dominant
responsible thing for psi data, it might change how we perceive or
interpret the psi experience itself.
As I went to reply to this email, yahoo gave me the ever-present big
graphic advertising header. It was size x? for a bit, with a man in
a spacesuit in space and these white + signs flying about in space. I
couldn't help but notice that this so reminded me of my session on
the guy in space and data that repeated a couple of times about these
little things and little energy things -- not long after feedback I'd
read an article that specifically said something like, space is
filled with a bunch of tiny energy particles flying about -- so I
figured that's where I got the data, as it's certainly not visible in
feedback. I wonder how long it will be before I quit noticing things
related to a session experience -- and how long my 'noticing' might
potentially affect the entire experience back in time.
Maybe today is really a 'living memory' of how we feel about
yesterday. Not just the yesterday we consider yesterday, but the
yesterday which might actually be today, if perception were even a
moment 'offset' energetically. Maybe happenings are pure energy and
only memory is 'experiential', lol.
I am feeling too weirded out today to be communicating I think...
PJ
#1697
Date: Thu Dec 1?, ?00? ?:16 am
Subject: Re: Future Memory k9caninek9
> PJ wrote
> I wonder how long it will be before I quit noticing things
> related to a session experience -- and how long my 'noticing' might
> potentially affect the entire experience back in time.
I remember in one session, I got a strong aol of the little birds
that dance at the beginning of the Partridge family TV series. I
also aoled on that song that goes with the series. That show is so
old and I hadn't thought about it in ages. I was so curious to see
what it would have to do with the target. But when I got feedback,
the target was a hamburger on a plate! I was wondering how on Earth
I got those birds and that song. Well a few days later, I was
watching tv and there was a fast food commercial that was going for
the retro theme. On the screen was a big hamburger and underneath
danced the telltale birds in question with the song blaring in the
background. It was hilarious!
-E
#1719
Date: Thu Dec 1?, ?00? 3:40 am
Subject: Re: Future Memory dennanm
That IS hilarious. But exasperating, too! How the hell is one
supposed to make sense of associations or symbology in session when
they're caused by experiences that haven't even happened yet?!
That has the same twisted logic as punishing people for crimes they
haven't yet committed -- but will. ;-? )
PJ
> "Eva wrote:
> I remember in one session, I got a strong aol of the little birds
> that dance at the beginning of the Partridge family TV series. I
> also aoled on that song that goes with the series.
[snip]
> But when I got feedback,
> the target was a hamburger on a plate!
> I was wondering how on Earth
> I got those birds and that song.
> Well a few days later, I was
> watching tv and there was a fast food
> commercial that was going for
> the retro theme. On the screen was a big
> hamburger and underneath
> danced the telltale birds in question with
> the song blaring in the
> background. It was hilarious!
#1736
Date: Thu Dec 1?, ?00? 11:15 am
Subject: Re: Future Memory k9caninek9
> PJ wrote:
> That IS hilarious. But exasperating, too! How the hell is one
> supposed to make sense of associations or symbology in session when
> they're caused by experiences that haven't even happened yet?!
The thing is, did my mind only get that because I saw it later?
After all, the commercial was already made and running when I was
doing the session. Heck I probably did already see the commercial
before that and hadn't even thought about it. The conscious mind may
simply have failed to make the connection earlier. It's hard to
say. Either way, it hasn't happened much so it's not that big of a
deal.
ON a more abstract level, I still think the past and future are
really just illusions anyway, if 'illusion' is even the right word.
Maybe it's more like it looks a certain way to us because we don't
have conscious access to a whole bunch of other knowledge that would
put it in perspective. If that were true, then speaking of future
memory would be speaking of an illusion. There would be no diff
labels of when the info came from. I think of the universe as one
big super complex 'vibration' that continually reshapes itself until
it finally finds a stable form. I think all the traveling around
through time and space and changing of past and future is just an
effort to tune the wave form into a final workable sequence. I don't
know if that makes any sense...
-E
pjrv : Messages : 1739-1745 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1739?? )
?
?3:19:43
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#1739
Date: Thu Dec 1?, ?00? 11:56 am
Subject: Re: Re: Future Memory a_healey56
> I remember in one session, I got a strong aol of the little birds
> that dance at the beginning of the Partridge family TV series. I
> also aoled on that song that goes with the series.
Thanks a lot E! Now that stupid song and the "Caution: Nervous Mother
Driving" sign are stuck in my head. I just hope they don't haunt me long
enough that I need to enlist Nita Hickock's services to get them out. ;-? )
Dave
[We have specialists on staff. LOL! - PJ]
#1745
Date: Fri Dec 13, ?00? 1:?8 am
Subject: Re: Re: Future Memory rfjuice?000
Hi all,
That's so true, one of the things that led me to rv , was when I was
simply meditating and saw a street sign with the name of a road I never heard
of. I asked friends if they knew this street and no one did. It turned out
a week later my daughter was invited to party at a new friends house in the
next town, and that was the name of her road. Then I agonized over, if that
was some kind of forewarning. So after a big lecture to my daughter (she
thought I was nuts? ) it turned out fine.
Linda
> PJ wrote:
> That IS hilarious. But exasperating, too!
> How the hell is one supposed to make sense of
> associations or symbology in session when
> they're caused by experiences that haven't
> even happened yet?!
|