pjrv : Messages : 1530-1544 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1530?)
23:08:59
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#1530
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 pm
Subject: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' dennanm
I was talking to Joe about my thoughts on 'reasons for data'
recently; specifically my wondering about, is psychology the reason
that different people get different data or perceive it a different
way, or is it something else - like the nature of the target, or the
degree of skill?
The reason I am interested - well there are a few.
1. If I don't get something really obvious in a target, I want to
know why. Did I block it for some reason?
2. If I get something that is very minor, I want to know why. Does my
mind think it's more important?
3. If I get data in a certain fashion, and X gets the same data but
receives it in a totally different way - for example, one of us
may 'personalize' and the other may not - why is that?
I've always assumed all this was psychology. So I thought I'd ask
him about it. After a few days it occurred to me that I ought to ask
if I could post his comments on the private RV Oasis list. Others
might find them useful as well.
[begin private discussion]
PJ: I'm curious, what do you believe is the reason people get
whatever data they do and in the way they do?
Joe: They get the data they get because it's what they will come to
know is true. They get it in levels of detail according to their
ability to translate what their mind is telling them. Sometimes the
easiest details to translate are the ones that have the least amount
of meaning relative to the target, or vice versa. There is no
controlling what is translated until enough discipline is learned
about one's mind and how to use it.
PJ: I mean YES, if there IS data and it's pretty obvious or
important, I can see all viewers might get it. But there could be
1001 things about a given target. Or there could be 3 major things --
but they could be perceived from totally different angles,
perspectives, interpretations. What do you think causes the data
and perspective we all experience uniquely, if not our own
psychology?
Joe: I'm not sure it's always one's psychology, although that might
be a part of it, it also has to do with how far down in the weeds of
details one is talented enough to differentiate about. That gives
more range or breadth to the person's ability to describe specific
elements of a target whether they are important or not. It's the
complexity of the details that's being interpreted or screwed up.
PJ: And if we create our own reality, isn't that hour of remote
viewing part of our reality?
Joe: Absolutely. So? If you are in neutral and open to whatever is
supposed to be presented, then your personality should not have any
bearing on what you receive. It only has a bearing on what you will
then report.
PJ: I'm not saying that for example, if something in a target is
upsetting that it's "the viewer's fault", that's silly. But fault
and understanding things are part of what our psychology and /or soul
chose to experience are two different things.
Joe: If I hate spiders and have perceptions of them in a remote
viewing some say I might shy away from mentioning them, or taint the
report with my own psychological reaction to them. But, in reality, I
won't. I will simply report spiders, their color, shape, and type,
and move on. When I remote view I'm not interested in how I feel
about something, I'm just being a conduit through which information
should flow that I can interpret. The psychological problems do get
in the way however. If I'm asked to remote view something double
blind and I get an impression a child is being molested or tortured
or something, I put more effort into the response and usually do a
much better job - simply because I think child molesters are sick and
should be caught quickly.
PJ: In order to understand why my psychology "didn't get the person
in the target" or "got this but not that" or "got that thing in this
certain way", I HAVE to work on the concept that what, and how, my
mind perceives and interprets, is an issue of my unique mind, and
part of what I am working to understand.
Joe: That's what I've been saying. But, you should also be working on
not letting your feelings (psychological or otherwise) get between
you and the information you are translating.
PJ: If I got a star burst for 'energy' that isn't because energy in
the target "made" me get a star burst and "makes" someone else get a
lightning bolt and another misses it entirely, it's because that's
how my mind has chosen, for the moment, to interpret or symbolize or
allegorize 'energy'.
Joe: That's correct. So? It still has no psychological import to you
beyond that, or it shouldn't.
PJ: If I view a target and pick up way too much "personally" of
someone getting murdered (as I have picked up little details like
someone's hands aching horribly and him being exhausted, for example,
then I assume maybe I could actually at some point perceive
something more vivid and negative), I would assume that for whatever
reason, my mind chose to tune into that aspect. I mean I could have
tuned into the killer instead. I could have perceived it all
differently, separately, distantly. If I experienced someone
plunging a knife into me- as-target somehow, I have to conclude that
for whatever reason, some part of me chose that experience.
Joe: No. You simply described the easiest issue within the target to
be translated - the emotion of dying - which relevant to a dying
event, is pretty significant to the event and pretty simple to
translate. The killer is going to be far more complex and difficult
to deal with. You should by knowing someone is dying already be
reaching out for the information relevant to the killer or reason for
death.
PJ: Yes, the target's a bitch for sure, but how can one not operate
on the assumption what/ how data is perceived is based on the
viewer's psychology more than the nature of the target?
Joe: Nature of the target drives all, everything else is talent
based, based on practice, based on learning and habit forming.
[end private discussion]
Reply | Forward
#1531
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Mon Nov 25, 2002 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' docsavagebill
Hi PJ,
Ha Ha... so much for our psychology theories..G.
It does make sense to me what he says.. although I
always am ready for factor X also. I don't
successfully view a beautiful female target face more
often than any other target faces even though I might
emotionally be likely too. I tend to see first
whatever translates into my limited skill set easiest
just like Joe said. Which probably would be the shape
of her hair line.. or her teeth etc.. .. ..So does
than mean our "viewing self" is sort of robotic and
without emotions or personality???
Bill
-------------------------
Moderator's note: Reminds me of after the 1/94 northridge quake, everyone felt
like the ground was shaking almost constantly, and this psychologist came on the
radio telling us how this was normal, it was just our minds, and would go away
soon, very soothing. Turns out we were having thousands of aftershocks. So we
weren't just imagining it. So much for psychology. ;-) -- PJ
Reply | Forward
#1535
From: "Scott Ellis"
Date: Mon Nov 25, 2002 7:04 pm
Subject: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' scottrver
Hi PJ,
I know you've stated many times that you think psychology is
everything in RV. I can only comment on my own limited experience
which is that I don't think psychology plays much of a role, if any,
in my perceiving data about the target. My whole methodology is an
attempt to become detached and egoless. To me Joe's responses seem to
be saying the same thing. (I have considered that psychology might be
a possible factor in displacement - but of course that's pure
conjecture and is more than likely wrong.)
However, I would imagine that there are a multitude of ways that
different people process the data received and so it may be for you
that your psychology plays a much bigger part in that process than
what I experience. So your hypothesis might be true, but not for
everyone - or even only true for you because you think it's true. It
might effectively be a methodology issue.
Scott
-------------------
Moderator's note: I believe that psychology is the primary issue in whether or
not someone ends up a good viewer in the long run - for about 1001 reasons. It
was the "uniqueness" of data per-person that made me think it was likely
psychology that determined data, as psychology is the one thing different to all
people. Joe says that affects how people report, but not how they get, and
getting it is about talent, skill, practice, habits. He would know! -- so, that
is a good answer, and gave me something new to think on. -- PJ
Reply | Forward
#1537
From: "Scott Ellis"
Date: Mon Nov 25, 2002 8:24 pm
Subject: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' scottrver
Hi PJ,
> Moderator's note: I believe that psychology is the primary issue in
whether or not someone ends up a good viewer in the long run - for
about 1001 reasons.
Well of course we have no way to know. I'm sure it's part of the
determining factor, but genetics was certainly the primary issue in
determining that I would never be a fast runner. Clearly, we are not
all built the same biologically with regards to RV either.
Scott
--------------------------
Moderator's note: Right... especially if genetics greatly determine our
psychology, in which case it's a chicken or egg thing I guess, lol! PJ
Reply | Forward
#1544
From: "Scott Ellis"
Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:51 am
Subject: Psychology and viewing scottrver
PJ,
> Moderator's note: Right... especially if genetics greatly determine
> our psychology, in which case it's a chicken or egg thing I guess
So if psychology doesn't impact one's RV perceptions, then what are
the real psychological aspects of RV for you?
Is it within sessions or outside of sessions?
Is it discipline vs. avoidance of practice sessions?
Is it focussing to quiet your mind vs. internal dialog? (FWIW, talking
with your ankle sounds like internal dialog to me PJ)
Is it maintaining consistency of methodology or continually looking
for a new variation?
For me, psychological issues are primarily outside the act of viewing
itself - everything leading up to my being in a meditative zone and
everything after I'm out of it.
Scott
------------------------
Moderator's note: Everything I guess. In his interviews, when asked what % of
"psi talent" was likely psychology, Joe replied, "All of it." I think the
primary thing is belief systems. After that is simply the psychology to make one
disciplined and consistent with it - as well as to be able to deal with failure
and success and the result of the belief system changes. I think you're right,
it can almost be separated into 'the actual viewing time' and 'everything else'.
Unfortunately unless everything else is going well, one may not 'get around to'
- or be much good at - the viewing time. So I guess the overall process has to
be life-wide, not just a set of rules. PJ
pjrv : Messages : 1538-1551 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1538?)
23:09:36
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#1538
From: greenmn900...
Date: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:21 pm
Subject: Re: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' greenmn900...
Hi,
This thread made me start thinking....You know how when you see a car
accident, or watch a game, or even see a movie or listen to a song -
Everyone seems to be especially aware of different facets of the same thing.
The part of a movie that really strikes me may mean nothing to someone else,
they didn't even really notice it. Or if I see a car wreck, I may cue in on
the look on the driver's face just as the car was crashing. Some one else
may view the same thing, from the same angle, and they really cued in on the
sounds, the screeching tires, the slam!, and the crunch of metal. This other
person may not have even been aware of the driver's face at all.
Sometimes I wonder if RV is like that. It's NOT that we don't GET all the
data. It's there. It's just that we don't key in on some points for some
reason. The feeling I got from what Joe said about this is that we report on
the things that are easiest for us to report on, the things we are familiar
and comfortable with. Considering how fast RV information can fly by, it's
gone in such a flash; it could be that we just grab and interpret the things
that are easiest for us, which I would think would be the things we are most
comfortable with interpreting, or maybe the things that we are familiar
enough with, that we were able to grasp it more easily than other bits of
data.
I know that many, many times bits of data flash through my mind so fast, I'm
left wondering, "What the hell was that?" And even if what seems to the same
information flashes several more times, sometimes I just can't get it. Then
later, when I see my feedback, I can sometimes see what was causing that
reaction in me, I just couldn't recognize it.
I think this one of the ways that practice makes such a big difference. We
gain experience at grabbing more data out of the information bursts that are
streaming by us (or through us). And I think is one of the areas where
spending a lot of time with your feedback and thinking back to how you felt
and what was going through your mind at different times during the session
really helps too. You start to make the connections, even if they are very
subtle and almost subliminal. This is probably why, when I've seemed to
suddenly burst out of a plataeu and start getting better results and greater
detail, I know I've learned something about RV and about how I process data;
but I could never sit down and explain what I've learned, I can't put my
finger on it. I just know that I have. In a lot of ways, RV must be the
most frustrating thing anyone could ever set out to do. :-)
Best Regards,
Don
Reply | Forward
#1540
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date: Mon Nov 25, 2002 11:23 pm
Subject: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' dennanm
Hi Don,
> Everyone seems to be especially aware of
> different facets of the same thing.
Yeah, that's what I always found fascinating - in life, but
definitely in RV.
Kinda funny, because you see, I had this feeling like, if I missed a
ton of data that was obvious, it must be because my subconscious was
sabotaging me. Well actually this DOES happen, easily measured by
the next few targets after a session I feel really good about! But
on a per-target basis, it's really hard to be blaming your psychology
for every imperfection. Joe's comments kind of clear it up for me.
It isn't that a session sucks because I am sabotaging myself; it just
sucks because I'm not any good at it, LOL! I mean, it's actually
kind of nice to know that it is much more an issue of target and
skill than psychology. I can handle the idea that I'm just not good
enough yet. Dealing with feeling like some part of me is sabotaging
the other part of me is a lot harder.
> It's NOT that we don't GET all the
> data. It's there. It's just that we
> don't key in on some points for some
> reason.
Yeah... actually, I can often 'feel' data and 'almost hear' data that
I just can't reach. It's like it's just... a few frequencies over...
like a radio station that you can't quite tune in. It's intangible,
as if it's hovering around my head in some amorpheous cloud form...
not defined.
> Considering how fast RV information
> can fly by,
Yeah. I have begun to notice lately how much of my data is actually
observed AFTER the fact. Like I'm sitting there trying to be 'open'
to data and I suddenly go, "Oh - wait! What was that, a moment
ago?!" - it takes a bit for it even to sink into my brain that I
perceived something, then I have to rewind.
> I think this one of the ways that
> practice makes such a big difference.
I hope so.
> In a lot of ways, RV must be the
> most frustrating thing anyone could ever set out to do. :-)
Well it's on MY list. ;-)
PJ
Reply | Forward
#1547
From: "Glyn"
Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 2:43 pm
Subject: RE: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' gebega
Hi PJ, Don, and all,
> In a lot of ways, RV must be the
> most frustrating thing anyone could ever set out to do. :-)
> > Well it's on MY list. ;-)
I think it's on everyone's list :-).
I think I was told this when I was doing the on-line HRVG training last
year, but wherever I got it it's a handy little practice tool.
Get a magazine you haven't looked at a lot before (one with lots of
pictures). Hold it closed in front of you with your eyes shut, then suddenly
open it up and look directly at the first picture your eyes land on... but
for only a split-second (open eyes, look, close eyes...*really* quickly).
Then (while eyes still closed fold down or mark the page so you don't lose
it...unless you want to try matching up later :-)), get some paper and a pen
and draw with as much detail as you can what you have seen, and write
descriptive words as well if you want. *But* before you do that, wait one
minute so that the 'after-image' in your working memory has a chance to
fade....it's a heck of a lot harder then. Mean aren't I? LOL!
Very valuable for the visual memory, as well as honing up the descriptive
powers :-). I was horribly shocked how little I remembered when I first
tried that; especially after waiting for a while before attempting to
re-visualise. I'm not a lot better at it now, but I should practice it more.
Makes me wonder in fact whether having a photographic memory would be an
advantage when doing RV and getting 'visuals'.
If you get the chance PJ, please ask Joe if he has a good 'visual' memory.
Would be interesting, though I agree that some viewers will concentrate on
getting different types of impression; not necessarily visual.
Regards,
Glyn
-----------------------
Moderator's note: Yes. I don't have to ask him that. He has one of the most
exceptional memory abilities I think I've ever encountered - visual, audio,
anything. Only person I remember being equally impressed with was an 8th degree
blackbelt zen priest. ;-) Separate note on magazine pictures -- I am thinking
about our conversation on 'what' data we get and 'how' we interpret it, and why
-- I wonder if Playboy pics would remain clearer in someone's mind than say, an
ad for a truck. LOL. Hey, this could make memory exercises the most fun part of
RV for some people! ;-) PJ
Reply | Forward
#1542
From: "David Humphries"
Date: Mon Nov 25, 2002 11:40 pm
Subject: Re: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' a_healey56
Hi PJ,
> Yeah... actually, I can often 'feel' data and 'almost hear' data that
> I just can't reach. It's like it's just... a few frequencies over...
> like a radio station that you can't quite tune in. It's intangible,
> as if it's hovering around my head in some amorpheous cloud form...
> not defined.
I've felt like this the last few weeks...it's frustrating!
> Yeah. I have begun to notice lately how much of my data is actually
> observed AFTER the fact. Like I'm sitting there trying to be 'open'
> to data and I suddenly go, "Oh - wait! What was that, a moment
> ago?!" - it takes a bit for it even to sink into my brain that I
> perceived something, then I have to rewind.
I hate it when that happens! Regular meditation is a good way to learn to
be better about paying attention and not missing those quick bursts of data.
> > In a lot of ways, RV must be the
> > most frustrating thing anyone could ever set out to do. :-)
> Well it's on MY list. ;-)
Yeah, why are we all so compelled to put ourselves through this? ;-)
Dave
Reply | Forward
#1543
From: "Elizabeth Hambrook"
Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 5:55 am
Subject: Re: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' ozblueriver
> Don was saying.......
> Everyone seems to be especially aware of different
> facets of the same thing. The part of a movie that
> really strikes me may mean nothing to someone else,
> they didn't even really notice it.
Hi Don and PJ,
This reminds me of an excersise I had to do while taking a course. A chair was
put in the middle of the room. The chairs we sat in circled the empty chair. We
were all told to sketch the empty chair and hand in our drawing.
The point was that although we were all describing exactly the same chair, under
exactly the same conditions, none of us could ever see it from exactly the same
perspective as anyone else.
A similar reason must also apply to why we get different info from the same RV
target. Even if it is as simple as what point in 'space' we are viewing it from.
If the target is seen from one angle you may miss seeing a certain aspect of it
or a particular aspect may stand out just that bit clearer.
Where you view something from can change what you see dramatically.
Cheers
Liz
----------------------
Moderator's note: Good point Liz, and an interesting thought. It leads me to
wonder, is our "vantage point" in RV as arbitrary as everything else? Are we
really getting the "energy" of the entire target - more cosmic info than we
could assimilate - and is our 'vantage point' itself as much an arbitrary,
what-is-easiest-for-that-person's-mind issue as "data" itself? Is 'vantage
point' itself merely information? PJ
Reply | Forward
#1545
From: greenmn900...
Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 8:18 am
Subject: Re: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' greenmn900...
Hi,
> You wrote:
> "Yeah. I have begun to notice lately how much of my data is actually
> observed AFTER the fact. Like I'm sitting there trying to be 'open'
> to data and I suddenly go, "Oh - wait! What was that, a moment
> ago?!" - it takes a bit for it even to sink into my brain that I
> perceived something, then I have to rewind"
I read a small book by an old spiritualist, can't remember his name
(Leadbeter, maybe) but I've still got the book around here somewhere. The
book was about telepathy, reading the aura, scrying, and psychometry. It was
very good and I immediately noted that a lot of things about psi we discuss
today and sometimes seem to rediscover, they were well-aware of in the 1920s.
One of the things he discussed at length is the way psi data often comes in
such quick, fleeting bursts that one of the major obstacles to being accurate
is just catching the information as it speeds by. He went on to duscuss
other problems like interpretation of symbols, etc.
But he had a neat little game he called "Kim's Game" that he used to improve
his ability to grab the data as it flows by. He would take a small tray,
like a serving tray, and go over to a friends' house. Then he would ask his
friend to walk through their house, picking up small objects - buttons,
figurines, knick-knacks, maybe a piece of silverware, etc. and place them on
the tray. He would have his back turned as his friend walked back into the
room in which the author was standing, holding the tray. They would stand
back-to-back and on a count of three, both would then turn a full circle
until they were standing back-to-back again. As they turned, he would glance
at the tray and try to quickly memorize every object that was there. Then he
would start to list them.
He said that he quickly began to improve at this little game and that by the
time he had improved enough to be able to list 15 or so objects, he began to
notice improvements in his psychometry reporting. He claimed that he
eventually got to the point to where he could list around 25-30 items that
had been placed on the tray.
I used to do my own little version of this game with my wife. We would sit
facing each other while she held a magazine. She would then turn the
magazine over and back again very quickly. Then I'd try to tell her what was
on the page. It seemed like this helped my RV reporting too, after awhile.
Actually, I need to start doing this again. These days If I let more than
3-4 pieces of data build up in my memory, I'll start to forget some of them
by the time I open my eyes to write it down.
Best Regards,
Don
--------------------------
Moderator's note: I have a program called Ace Reader, which provides both
'Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP)' and 'Tachistoscopic Scroll
Presentation (TSP)' tech in a speed reading program. I actually got it eons ago
specifically to practice super-fast speed reading, which I used to do a lot of
when young, to the point that when I stopped, I'd have to sit there for about 30
seconds while every line of text 'hit my brain' bam-bam-bam-bam as my eyes were
ahead of my brain. I had a really exceptional memory then, wonder if it was
related. Anyway I have the program and thought it would be cool for wading
through long internet articles, but I never use it. Maybe I should start! PJ
Reply | Forward
#1548
From: "Glyn"
Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 2:47 pm
Subject: RE: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' gebega
Hi Don,
Just sent my mail about using a magazine and then read this from you. Now
how's that for synchron...y (I can never spell that word :-) ??
Maybe our subs are trying to tell us something.
Regards,
Glyn
> I used to do my own little version of this
> game with my wife. We would sit
> facing each other while she held a magazine....
Reply | Forward
#1549
From: "Sharon Webb"
Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 2:57 pm
Subject: Re: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' sharwebb_30512
Don,
This technique sounds a lot like Jose Silva's suggestion for developing
visualization in kids. Because children under twelve are more often in alpha,
than beta (and children under six more often in theta), he said they do not need
intensive training. Instead, he suggested that parents simply arrange seven or
eight random items on a coffee table, have the child observe it briefly, and
then ask the child to shut his/her eyes and 'see' the items there. He said to
make a game of it and within a few weeks time the child would be expert at it.
He said his Silva Method was not necessary for children if this technique was
followed.
Sharon
sharwebb...net
www.fractalus.com/sharon
Reply | Forward
#1551
From: greenmn900...
Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: Re: McMoneagle on 'Reasons for Data' greenmn900...
> glyn writes:
> Just sent my mail about using a magazine and then read this from you. Now
> how's that for synchron...
Amazing! I guess this line of thought led us both in the same direction.
Best regards,
Don
|