pjrv : Messages : 891-891 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/891?)
2006/06/30 22:32:38
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#891
From: Timelord2029...
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 6:57 am
Subject: Re: hard work? psitrooper24
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi Sharon,
I dont think its a case of hard work
but just like any "art form" or skill
you will still need to practice like hell
to be world class at just about anything these
days. I see no evidence at the moment that
this will be any different for RV.
Like my mama use to say nothing wrong with
a little bit of hard work every now and then
as long as your enjoying it:-)
Peace,
Tunde
pjrv : Messages : 888-962 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/888?)
2006/06/30 22:36:54
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#888
From: "Sharon Webb"
Date: Tue Oct 22, 2002 10:04 pm
Subject: hard work? sharwebb_30512
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
PJ,
Will you expand on your use of "extended proper practice?" I can agree that if
you don't use it, you won't get any benefit from it, but I'm a little leery of
the "implied" need for "hard work." The belief in hard work leads to hard
work...or to discouragement.
What I'm really interested here is the---apparent---underlying belief that
anything connected with psi requires hard work. Is this a limiting belief? I
think maybe it is. I think it may also be a way to rationalize that psi is way
too "hard" for anyone to accomplish without extreme dedication. Is this the way
you see it? And are we just laying obstacles in our way with these beliefs?
Sharon
sharwebb...et
www.fractalus.com/sharon
Reply | Forward
#890
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 9:15 am
Subject: Re: hard work? dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Hiya Sharon,
> Will you expand on your use of "extended proper practice?"
I don't think it's a cosmic law. It's simply that not many people
have demonstrated being particularly good-and-consistent at RV, and
those who have, say that it only happened for them after several
years of constant practice. So, given that's the only success I see
so far, I'm taking their word on it and hoping that if I do what they
did, I'll get better too, as I am not too great now.
> I'm a little leery of the "implied" need for "hard work."
> The belief in hard work leads to hard work... or to
> discouragement.
I think you're right about that. There's no reason it can't be easy
to just be great and consistent right off. If it doesn't seem to be
for anybody I've met, maybe it's just that we all share the hard-work
belief system.
> What I'm really interested here is the---apparent---underlying
> belief that anything connected with psi requires hard work.
> Is this a limiting belief?
I think I probably do have that belief, and I think it is limiting.
I was just talking to an email buddy about this last night.
> I think it may also be a way to rationalize
> that psi is way too "hard" for anyone to
> accomplish without extreme dedication.
> Is this the way you see it?
I hope not. It would be very cool if I could have the development
curve I've had with many things in life, which far improved (in speed
and ease) what most everybody else thought was necessary. Maybe a
little more of that in my belief systems about psi would help.
PJ
Reply | Forward
#892
From: Melodie Kleiman
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: Re: hard work? mmk3...ng.com
Send Email Send Email
In my opinion, there is a lot of hard work that goes into creating the
pathways (neuron or other energy) that allow for communication with the
higher source of knowledge, whether you call that the signal line or
anything else. Those pathways allow for communication on many levels, one
of which is RV. Once they have been created, then RV is no longer hard
work. Melodie
Reply | Forward
#895
From: "Glyn"
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 2:18 pm
Subject: Re: Re: hard work? gebega
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi Melodie,
I definitely think that's a good part of it! I guess the most talented
psychics could have those neural (or whatever is at work here) pathways you
talk about more developed in the first place.
If psi ability has anything to do with 'physical' brain pathways/connections
at all, then maybe they can be further developed by those of us with less of
a 'head start' (excuse the pun :-). That may help explain why it can take so
long to see any great difference in improvement, because like other brain
connections/re-routing that may take place during learning, or in extreme
cases after strokes or brain-damage, (I have read about that, but as I'm not
a neurologist I am only putting down thoughts), then for some it may be
faster, and for some slower.......and seems to depend on sheer repetition;
explaining the need for practice until the connections are made. After that
of course the sky may be the limit! ;-)
Maybe positive thinking and sheer belief can help facilitate those
necessary connections too. Who knows for sure, but I'm going to believe all
that, because it gives something to aim for; and may even be right. :-).
Onwards and upwards then :-)
Regards,
Glyn
Reply | Forward
#900
From: "David Humphries"
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: Re: hard work? a_healey56
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Melodie,
Are you telling us that RV is easy for you, or is this just an hypothesis?
(serious question)
David
> In my opinion, there is a lot of hard work that goes into creating the
pathways (neuron or other energy) that allow for communication with the
higher source of knowledge, whether you call that the signal line or
anything else. Those pathways allow for communication on many levels, one
of which is RV. Once they have been created, then RV is no longer hard
work. Melodie
Reply | Forward
#914
From: Melodie Kleiman
Date: Thu Oct 24, 2002 10:23 am
Subject: Re: Re: hard work? mmk3...ng.com
Send Email Send Email
It's easy for me after doing nine years of intensive work to build the
pathways.
At 03:43 PM 10/23/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Melodie,
>
>Are you telling us that RV is easy for you, or is this just an hypothesis?
>(serious question)
>
>David
>
> > In my opinion, there is a lot of hard work that goes into creating the
>pathways (neuron or other energy) that allow for communication with the
>higher source of knowledge, whether you call that the signal line or
>anything else. Those pathways allow for communication on many levels, one
>of which is RV. Once they have been created, then RV is no longer hard
>work. Melodie
Reply | Forward
#918
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Thu Oct 24, 2002 9:10 pm
Subject: Re: Re: hard work? Rich_crv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Moderator's note: Well if I count the many out of protocol training...
> and call them back... does my left knee have an opinion? It might.
> I abreact enough in session to suspect that energy
> is literally traveling through my body and often I
> abreact (muscle spasm) and lose it, like it's deflected.
> Of course that's old news in many of the things I've
This reminds me of Pru's old Lotto RV group. The methodology involved assigning
a digit to each finger and trying to sense a reaction for each lotto digit.
Rich
Reply | Forward
#922
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Fri Oct 25, 2002 1:14 pm
Subject: Re: Re: hard work? docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> > Moderator's note: ... does my left knee have an
> opinion? It might.
> --- Richard Krankoski wrote:
> This reminds me of Pru's old Lotto RV group. The
> methodology involved assigning a digit to each
> finger and trying to sense a reaction for each lotto
> digit.
Hi Rich,
Well I think one should "probe" body parts that seem
to be receiving something..the same way you would
probe an ideogram. Just open your mind to impressions
and tap your knee etc.. ..why not?
Best Regards,
Bill
---------------------------
Moderator's note: Scientology has a 'tracking' technique that is remarkably
effective, where the monitor places their hand palm-flat against your body and
has you focus (depending on the exercise) specifically on a given feeling or
question 'through' that part of your body. It's quite amazing for bringing up
memories suppressed. The Biogram stuff I used to study (see my website personal
archives) uses something similar to this as well, in conjunction with
biofeedback. Just notes. -- PJ
Reply | Forward
#897
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 5:14 pm
Subject: Re: Re: hard work? docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi PJ,
Honestly..how much better are you now than when you
first learned how to do it correctly, and actually
believed you could? have you really improved much
since that point?
Best Regards,
bill
Reply | Forward
#899
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: hard work? dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
> Honestly..how much better are you now than when you
> first learned how to do it correctly, and actually
> believed you could? have you really improved much
> since that point?
I dunno Bill. I didn't measure anything.
I had a rather unusual situation where I was sort of prevented from
practicing, so I only had a few targets to do, and then like 8 months
later when I discovered I could make my OWN target pool (this was not
a given way back when mind you), I was so busy, having dived into
trying to help make RV possible for everyone 'else', I had no time.
Awhile later when I decided to MAKE time, I discovered that being
100% immersed in the RV online world which was SO nasty back then it
makes today's politics seem polite and gentle, had so affected me
emotionally, that merely the THOUGHT of RV literally set me off. It
took me four years out of the field to finally let go of all that
crap so I could practice without getting so emotionally whacked I
couldn't practice -- so I am really just beginning, all over again.
I had one brief start in early 1996. Only counting those in protocol
of course, about six targets. I had no idea what the hell I was
doing, didn't do it long enough or 'in state' enough, but did
extremely well in retrospect, though I had a tendency to semi-bi-
locate into the target which kind of flipped me out. But I was
coming out of the 'bewilderness' period of my life then so I think
that's related somehow, everything was pretty extreme for me then. I
had another brief start in 1989, I only did 2.5 targets. The .5
was 'eh' -the first one was very good, the second was dead-on for
every detail but miles off on AOL-D for the conclusion (but that's
ok, live and learn). The next time I did any actual RV was basically
starting from scratch this August.
At which time, I actually feel I am considerably worse than I was
previously. I am better in terms of having half a clue what things
might mean, especially the offbeat seemingly "metaphysical" data, but
I don't see that I am any better than my first 'real' sessions --
probably worse, as I have more of a tendency to have an entire "good"
session only to find it has utterly zero to do with the target,
and/or, a "lousy" session that turns out to have been very accurate --
perhaps because I am finally doing RV *really*, I mean regularly, I
just have a lot more, different experiences across the board than I
ever had before. Hopefully time will cure that.
I assume if I had actually been practicing regularly since I trained
I'd be pretty darn good. No way to tell though. I joke that I
am "intellectually expert but functionally illiterate" about RV at
this point. It's all just a matter of time. So the answer is - I
don't know. I don't think I have gotten better in terms of overall
ability to connect with a target. Anything I might be improving on
seems to relate more to better understand what I'm doing, data I'm
getting, etc.
PJ
Reply | Forward
#916
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Thu Oct 24, 2002 6:17 pm
Subject: Re: Re: hard work? docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi PJ,
> discovered that being
> 100% immersed in the RV online world which was SO
> nasty back then .....
LOL.. I know exactly where your coming from!
> ..... I had no idea what
> the hell I was
> doing, .... but did
> extremely well in retrospect, .....
Exactly my point!!!!!!
> The next time I did any actual
> RV was basically
> starting from scratch this August.
> At which time, I actually feel I am considerably
> worse than I was
> previously.
My point again! So practice has not made perfect...G LOL!
I have the same trouble.. what seems to make people
better is learning a better technique.. or improving
there basic Psi connectivity . Whatever that is.
I still say its like playing golf.. practicing the
wrong way does not help and makes you worse. And as in
golf it's hard to know when you are doing things
wrong... there is no magic RV instructor to say..
"sorry but your thoughts are not quite focused in the
rightdirection now..or your GRIP of the session is off
just a little...or your swing at it is over the
top..".. And AOL's just come morphing in .. just like
a bad slice.. And you don't know why you are hitting
that slice. .you just keep hitting them..and then
accidentally wow! you hit one really good...G. So you
keep trying..
We need another dimension of thought to understand
why those good ones happened. We just don't understand
them.
Or we can just use the skill level we have in a way
that's useful . Like Greg K. He gets 58% in ARV now
and when I knew him 4 years ago he also got about
58% correct sessions. BUT! he has found ways to do
alot of sessions and carefully COMBINE and work things
and get ~80% good choices.. but his basic RV session
is the same as 4 years ago.despite doing 1000's of
them! Case closed!
Best Regards,
Bill
--------------------------
Moderator's note: Well if I count the many out of protocol training and practice
sessions (which I don't :-)) I've had good and lousy sessions using a variety of
methodologies both by the book and loosely and none at all. I've been talking
with some friends about things that seem to predispose good sessions, and with
myself about things that seem to open up information. Definitely all the things
that seem to vary my sessions relate to stuff I do before the session, the "way
I process or query" during the session, and all the mental and emotional stuff
before and during and even after. None of it really seems to relate a whole lot
to technique structurally (on paper) although much relates to technique
mentally/emotionally (processing and novel ways of going about stuff).
My primary interest right now is Aspect RV as I call it, this from my dozen
years of shamanic/archetypal/jungian/sethian work, it has a channeling flavor,
but you can call on not only various skillsets/talents, but on parts of your
body, on any character (famous dead people, live people, fictional characters),
and make up names for parts of yourself that responded in a unique way to
something and call them back... does my left knee have an opinion? It might. I
abreact enough in session to suspect that energy is literally traveling through
my body and often I abreact (muscle spasm) and lose it, like it's deflected. Of
course that's old news in many of the things I've studied over the years, but
putting my aspects and body stuff into the RV process is novel for me and I'm
kind of having fun with it and am about to get more structured with it and more
pointedly experimental.
I get a lot of information that is not about targets but is about me, and my
viewing process, if I ask, that seems useful. In general RV is becoming a lot
more about talking TO myself, ABOUT myself (one aspect told me "otherness is
projection" - that it was always about me), but in a much wider span of overall
personal and spiritual growth... RV is really just one part of it.
I've been coming up with thoughts and theories right and left lately, not that
any are good or great, but it usually means at least that I am opening up a bit.
PJ
Reply | Forward
#905
From: "Eva"
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:06 pm
Subject: On accuracy and terminology k9caninek9
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Bill, you gotta get your terminology straight. Accuracy is when
descriptions match the target. If I say it's tall, grey, and hard,
that can be accuracy (if it is true). But as I improve my rv stills,
I might then be able to say it is a skyscaper. That is also accurate
(if it is true). Both are perfectly accurate, but the second one is
a big improvement. Even newbies can get the good stuff, but
practiced viewers get it on a more regular basis. Looking at it that
way, your accuracy stays the same but you do improve and become much
more useful with practice. Now me personally, I don't have too much
opinion on that theory either way. I figure I will practice a lot
and see what happens and maybe later I will form an opinion.
-E
> Honestly..how much better are you now than when you
> first learned how to do it correctly, and actually
> believed you could? have you really improved much
> since that point?
Reply | Forward
#921
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Fri Oct 25, 2002 10:59 am
Subject: Re: On accuracy and terminology docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi Eve,
Perhaps, you will have to get back to me on that when
you think you have sufficient practice to say. Now
I've had those wonderful home runs ( very occasionaly)
but I have no idea why they occurred. I don't think
they occur merely by practice. There has got to be an
actual reason for them. One needs to find the REASON
for those great sessions..then be able to teach it. I
just don't think practice alone does it. It's learning
the correct ( and mysterious) WAY that does it. It's a
knowledge key..not a muscle you build..IMHO.
Best Regards,
Bill
-------------------
Moderator's note: In Joe's latest book THE STARGATE CHRONICLES he talks about
how he did well initially, then really sucked for awhile, and then did a good
session, and suddenly realized there was some kind of "switch" inside him and it
was just a matter of finding it again.... -- PJ
Reply | Forward
#923
From: "scottrver"
Date: Fri Oct 25, 2002 8:01 pm
Subject: Re: On accuracy and terminology scottrver
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi Bill and PJ,
The switch metaphor sounds pretty good - the problem is finding it.
There are definitely some sessions where the data just flows and the
ramifications at feedback are reality changing vs. others where it
trickles. But I can't identify anything I'm doing differently in the
two instances. So is the "switch" part of the physical body/brain or
is it part of the mind? If it's an electrical brainstate then doing
enough sessions while taking EEGs should allow one to potentially
identify that "switch" when it is set and use neurofeedback to find it
again.
Scott
Reply | Forward
#926
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date: Sat Oct 26, 2002 3:13 pm
Subject: Finding the 'Switch' for good psi dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Howdy Scott,
> The switch metaphor sounds pretty good - the problem is finding it.
> There are definitely some sessions where the data just flows and the
> ramifications at feedback are reality changing vs. others where it
> trickles. But I can't identify anything I'm doing differently in the
> two instances.
A buddy and I have been talking this over in PEM lately and one
theory we're bouncing around is "novelty". Often best sessions
happen when something different is actually in place -- whether it's
situation, or something you did the day of the session, or the
feelings going into it, or the approach during, whatever.
But usually repeating that novel experience, while *sometimes* it can
have some usefulness just because it is healthy in general (e.g., one
was 'creatively expressive' that day, or got a lot of exercise),
usually the repetition does not mean the other sessions that follow
are equally good. This could also tie into the issue we've discussed
here previously on how a change in methods often initially ups
results for people but that quickly tails off.
Another thing to consider is the fear-factor. Psi appears to be a
survival instinct and so "novelty" ties into that, as any new
situation brings out survival/learning/suggestibility response -- so
maybe even some degree of doing the RV in public places where you are
not totally comfortable and/or where you are exposed to others (even
sitting at the library) may relate.
So ironically, the 'grey room' might be nice, and might be cool to
use 'once in awhile' for variety but might actually NOT be helpful in
the long run. Pursuing doing RV in every different kind of
situation, in different places, using different approaches to it or
meditations prior or whatever, may be more useful.
So although there are some things that might help to do regularly, it
MAY be, that "change is the only constant" -- that a lack of change
in how one does or approaches sessions or their daily life, could
actually be *detrimental* to psi functioning. (!)
Obviously this is only theory but we are having a good time batting
it around.
PJ
Reply | Forward
#927
From: "scottrver"
Date: Sat Oct 26, 2002 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: Finding the 'Switch' for good psi scottrver
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi PJ,
> A buddy and I have been talking this over in PEM lately and one
> theory we're bouncing around is "novelty". Often best sessions
> happen when something different is actually in place -- whether it's
> situation, or something you did the day of the session, or the
> feelings going into it, or the approach during, whatever.
I personally have not observed such a "novelty" correlation. Along
the lines of McMoneagle's suggestions, I try to be consistent in doing
sessions as to time of day and do them always in the same environment.
Additionally, I'm always using targets from the same pool of 300. In
short, I've tried to reduce the novelty factor as much as possible.
My hit rate is pretty consistent and I actually am fairly happy with
it. The inconsistency comes in the quality of the data, which is
where I'd like to identify any switch that could be found.
Scott
Reply | Forward
#928
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date: Sat Oct 26, 2002 5:25 pm
Subject: Re: Finding the 'Switch' for good psi dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Howdy Scott!
> I've tried to reduce the novelty factor as much as possible.
> My hit rate is pretty consistent and I actually am fairly happy with
> it. The inconsistency comes in the quality of the data, which is
> where I'd like to identify any switch that could be found.
I didn't know we were talking about 'hit rate' (though given I
practice, but not judged against decoy by someone else sessions, I
don't really have any 'formal' hit rate). I'm just talking about
sessions with some remarkable quality in them -- usually this would
relate to the degree/depth of target contact (and hence resultant
quality of data).
Maybe it's not the same for everyone. I just go through my lab books
pretty regularly, and often notice new things. One thing I noticed
not long ago was that each session that I felt had some novel new
quality in it (something good), had correlated with it either a novel
new approach in session, or something specifically different about my
day shortly prior to the session. Yet even replicating that
circumstance didn't hold the session quality repeatedly. So I'm just
pondering the effect of novelty. It's possible that certain aspects
of my personality (like being such a high hypnotic) might for some
reason make me more affected by 'novelty' than other people are.
I have no idea what my 'hit rate' might be. My last 17 sessions
(since I began my new lab book) had 2 blown protocols, and of the
remaining 15, I considered 4 "off on Mars", but in reality, once I
was objective enough to review them without emotion related to my
aggravation :-), 2 of those had specific to the target data, 2 it's
open to interpretation, they just sucked as sessions (WORSE than
other sessions I merely considered bad sessions did :-)). The
majority of the 15 were 'exercises' (sessions shortly limited by time
and/or space, instead of free-flow open-ended sorts). My primary
issue with targets is simply not having the time or being in the
right state of mind to do a session at all.
As for novelty, I know Joe recommends (esp in Mind Trek but elsewhere
too) that one be consistent in environment and so on, but the way my
life goes, if I'm waiting for 1-2 hours of un-interrupted, un-noisy
time all in my neat little sitting room, well, I wouldn't practice
very often. And he's the guy talking about learning to RV anywhere,
any time, most any circumstance (within reason). So, I practice in 5-
15 minute periods, or 1-2 pages of data periods, while sitting in my
truck waiting for my kid, or while my kid is in the bathtub, or in
the brief period between when she falls asleep and I do. Considering
how seldom I get to do "extended" sessions (meaning 45+ minutes), I
don't really know how I'd do when working on deeper contact through
that approach. In my little RV world, either I learn to make contact
relative quick, or my session is over before I do. Novel stuff for
me is when I get data in a cool new way, or out of the blue something
just works really well (much better than normally).
At this point though, as far as 'how' data is received and how much
is received and the quality received, consistency would be the
most 'novel' thing of all for me. :-)
PJ
Reply | Forward
#930
From: "Darren Danks"
Date: Sat Oct 26, 2002 9:47 pm
Subject: RE: Re: Finding the 'Switch' for good psi daz_ufo
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> PJ wrote
> theory we're bouncing around is "novelty". Often best sessions
> happen when something different is actually in place -- whether it's
> situation, or something you did the day of the session, or the
> feelings going into it, or the approach during, whatever.
> Scott wrote
> I personally have not observed such a "novelty" correlation. Along
> the lines of McMoneagle's suggestions, I try to be consistent in doing
> sessions as to time of day and do them always in the same environment.
Hi Scott
But doesn't that also start going into the realms of when Joe says that
you start to come up with conditions why you can't do RV or why the
session
data isn't as good as I could be? It's like you saying that to do a good
session you HAVE to be at the right time, you HAVE to be in the same
environment etc.
Maybe PJ has something here with the "novelty" theory. Maybe doing
something
novel puts the mind into a state where the ego side doesn't put up it's
filters to stop or reduce psi functioning. Tricks the mind as it were.
I've yet to learn RV properly but I find that if I have any psychic
signals/impressions come in, it's when I'm doing something that's not
always
routine. More often than not it will be when I'm quite active like when
I'm
driving, showering or even at work trying to be very analytical in
electronics. Just a quick example before I wind up, on Monday I was
chatting to a friend at work about the sniper and all of a sudden the
letters J O came to me (his name is John). Very simple but it was when I
was
mentally and physically active rather than sitting quietly.
I think the idea is definitely worth looking into.
Take care
Darren
UK
Reply | Forward
#935
From: "scottrver"
Date: Sun Oct 27, 2002 12:59 pm
Subject: Re: Finding the 'Switch' for good psi scottrver
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi Darren,
> But doesn't that also start going into the realms of when Joe says that
> you start to come up with conditions why you can't do RV or why the
> session
> data isn't as good as I could be? It's like you saying that to do a good
> session you HAVE to be at the right time, you HAVE to be in the same
> environment etc.
Actually, for me it's simply a matter of trying to eliminate as many
variables as possible so that I can hopefully attribute variations in
performance to something more definitively. Thus far, I don't see
that I have any real kind of list of conditions other than to not be
overly tired and not immediately after eating (I've produced decent
data in both situations, but the sessions take forever.)
I'm not saying that novelty doesn't help people have a better session.
What I am saying is that I have both good and bad sessions without
novelty - hence, novelty is not required for me to have a good
session. I have also done sessions in other places such as sitting
in the car, without any performance out of the norm. So novelty is
not on my list or something I have to have.
My biggest practical obstacle is that I don't have enough time to do
more than about 2 sessions per week. I'm not naturally a morning
person, but I'm hoping that with the time change I can start getting
up an hour earlier every day now.
Scott
Reply | Forward
#960
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Sun Oct 27, 2002 11:42 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Finding the 'Switch' for good psi docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi Scott,
I think you are being a little premature in your
conclusion that novelty does not help. I've done 100's
of ARV targets and although a pattern of good bad or
backwards was in all of them. The fraction of CORRECT
targets ALWAYS increased after some change in the
protocol..then slipped again. I note that Joe M.
deliberately avoided the Gray room and prefered to do
Rv in noisy environments.towards the end ofhis time
there. in his opinion to be able to do it under all
circumstances..but I wonder if he was not just plain
bored with that gray room at ft meade.. and did better
with a little novelty. I also note that Ingo
absolutely refused to do the traditional psi
experiments with cards.after awhile...and said it
destroyed his pyschic ability to continue with such a
sterile boring task. RV is much more robust ..but
still gets boring if everything stays the same.
Perhaps you shoule try novelty in your sessions before
concluding it doesn't help?
Best regards,
Bill
------------------------
Moderator's note: I think he just meant, it hasn't improved his own sessions. I
didn't mean to make it sound like I thought "novelty" was the infamous "switch"
under discussion. Only that maybe for some people it helps. Maybe novelty
needs to be used in conjunction with other aspects of the work being very
consistent. Or just needs to brought in cyclically to refresh. Who knows. PJ
Reply | Forward
#962
From: "Scott Ellis"
Date: Mon Oct 28, 2002 8:47 am
Subject: The 'Switch' and 2nd ARV question scottrver
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi Bill,
Well in one sense novelty is always there in the feedback since I'm
not RVing cards and I always get a thrill to see data that is in the
target. But since I'm still able to have good sessions without
additional novelty then what is it that makes the difference?
By the way, my second ARV question about ARV is "Is the frequency of
ARV displacement vs. hitting correlated either directly or indirectly
to any testable environmental factor such as, but not limited to, time
of day/wk, hours since waking, LST, solar wind, GMF, Faraday
shielding, or lunar cycles?"
Hopefully I'll get a consensus outcome that won't be "other". Hey
Bill and PJ, this certainly qualifies as a novel tasking - at least
for me - so I'll be on the lookout for some extraordinarily good sessions.
Scott
|