pjrv : Messages : 2702-2714 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/2702?)
00:12:22
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#2702
From: "pjgaenir"
Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 11:12 pm
Subject: Modeling the Concepts. pjgaenir
I posted something on Farview tonight that related to the ongoing
discussion about 'retasking' and such, and decided I liked it well
enough that I'm going to cross-post it here. This was just my
thinking out loud, but it brought me to a funny ending so I thought
I'd share it. :-) PJ
-------------------------------
In my head I've been modeling the concept kind of like so:
X is the actual target. Let us say, the Seattle Space Needle.
Information about X resides in some netherland of consciousness which
apparently we are all part of. For simplicity, let us just say that X
is a 'coordinate' point as well as an energy.
Connected to the information about X is anything that actually
relates to X. Its past, its future, people who have interacted with
it, events which have related to it -- everything, literally, which
consciousness ever touches related to X, is connected with X.
To keep it simple and semi-linear for our brains, think of a flow
chart. Now if you remove linear 'time and space' from the equation
of what causes the formation of anything, and you map it out on a
computer screen like a flow chart might be, what you'd get is
something that probably looked a lot like a fractal.
Things growing out of other things. Repeating 'patterns' that
somehow mirror the primary nature of the original geometry itself and
spiral in on themselves. Something simple yet very complex, with
connections that might be infinite if explored far enough.
Consciousness in this model is like a kind of energy that by touching
the fractal, is seeding the growth of new fractal arms (expanding the
creating-consciousness of X itself).
When you look at this, you think of it as one fractal picture. You
don't really think of it as just one tiny piece of it. All the other
growth and connectiveness has become an integral part of the fractal
we are calling X.
Now a remote viewing session is done on X.
This nicely explains why viewers often get data that does not exist
at X during the session but does later. Or did previously. Or that
reflects some prevailing cultural theory about X even if it's wrong.
Consciousness is touching that fractal, and potentially getting a lot
of things that are part of the overall fractal, but perhaps not a
part of the "root" of it only.
----
Y in this illustration is the remote viewing session data. Let us
consider Y (the session data+experience) as one of the "fractal arms"
of X (the actual target).
Many of the connections and growth-offshoots of Y, are related to the
consciousness of people who considered the data, who judged it, who
analyzed it, who had an opinion about it, whatever. Y is a "part of
X" but now it also is its own identity, its own fractal arm with
independent evolution and aggregation of consciousness so to speak.
Now Y (the session) is a much more complex fractal than it would have
been, had only the viewer seen the feedback, and considered one
target as possible for it. Y as a fractal grows somewhat for every
connection, just like the target itself (X) does. The more people
who perceive it, the more connections it gets in terms of how its
perceived and so forth, the more it grows.
The fractal arm of X -- the actual root fractal point of Y -- grows
and expands and develops its own arms for every time consciousness
touches it. Every perception, event, etc. in some way touches it and
seeds the growth of that new fractal of consciousness.
The session ITSELF is consciousness. The paper, the ink, the
experience, and the "gestalt of it all" that we're calling Y, it
ITSELF consciousness. Everything is. It's not that RV is
consciousness but the data is something physical. Fundamentally
everything is consciousness, including your coffee table.
Because of this, everything is, fundamentally, subject to varying
degrees of "mutual co-creation" with consciousness that touches it.
Luther Burbank grew a spineless cacti by gradually convincing the
cacti that it didn't need thorns because he would protect it. I
can't think of anything more obviously physical than a cactus, yet
consciousness affected it.
---
So the concept of retasking comes down to the connection of all
consciousness. Technically, if we exclude retasking as being
relevant to a session, it is possible that we are trying to suggest
that in the isolated case of remote viewing, the interaction of
consciousness does NOT have an effect. This seems unlikely to me.
Given that RV as a process seems more involved with "consciousness"
than nearly anything else that comes to mind, then if anything, I
would expect an RV session to be quite a bit more "malleable" than
for example, your coffee table or a cacti.
In this model, it makes sense that 'retasking' a session would
contribute to the overall fractal of Y which is the session.
However, HOW MUCH it contributes, and HOW DOMINANT that contribution
is and WHETHER THE INTENT OF THE VIEWER CAN AFFECT SUCH are the
questions that I ask.
---
It is possible that the session, as a 'founding intent' of the
viewer, sets the 'rules of the universe for that session' so to
speak: in other words, sets the geometry for that particular arm of
the fractal, the pattern from which all development, however
creative, will follow. In other words, that 'intent' of the viewer
(who is the Prime Creator of the session) is dominant over all.
(I might add that the geometry will be in compliance with the
probabilities set forth by the root X fractal - the target. In other
words it is not impossible that sessions (Y) done on the target (X)
can have some inherent subtle pattern that was part of the
creation/intent of X itself.)
---
This model actually brings us right up to two commonly opposing
viewpoints in the RV field, regarding Telepathic Overlay.
Everyone knows you can communicate with another person non-
physically, and we use the word telepathy for this.
Everyone knows you can pick up the expectations of the person
selecting the target, and we use the term Tasker Intent for this.
What some disagree about, is whether Telepathic Overlay is unable to
be avoided by a remote viewer.
Some suggest that a session 'suffers' from it, with all the apparent
helplessness of an ant in the bathtub.
Others suggest that the intent of the viewer can "demarcate"
the "relevant" information (the root fractal) from that of the many
other fractal-arms that may be part of the larger fractal.
In short, that if the viewer is focused enough and has a strong
enough intent/will, that they can avoid being influenced by such
factors.
Most viewers I know who have experimented with this find that the
more they "allow themselves to accept that their data was right, but
it was telepathic overlay" tend to get a lot more of that; those who
refuse to consider it and simply consider the data wrong, tend to get
less. This may have less to do with the nature of T.O. then it does
the intent of the remote viewer.
So on one hand you will find viewers working hard to disbelieve it or
invalidate it or consider it unimportant, because this attitude is
beneficial to their viewing. On the other hand you might find these
same viewers discussing how to deal with it or lessen it. This often
really confuses people new to the field. :-)
---
If everything at a fundamental level is consciousness, then there is
no division; as the wise men say, we are all One.
However, in "perceptual experience" of reality, it's perfectly
apparent that we are NOT all one, as evidenced by the opinion of any
ex-spouse, LOL.
What "separates" consciousness if consciousness is everything?
Perhaps consciousness itself. Consciousness formed in a way
designed, creatively, to be the "divider" for experience.
"Intent" appears to be the motive force of the universe; your coffee
table, on some level of its combined components, intended to be a
coffee table; your child intended to be your child; and so forth.
If intent can create the diverse perception of the universe as we
know it, including how we organize information as individuals and as
a species, then I think intent can certainly be utilized to affect a
remote viewing session.
---
This suggests that a remote viewer could clearly delineate their
session data to apply specifically to the most important facets of
the target, and to be presented in such a way as to best address
those facets, and to not include information that is not relevant to
the target and/or the usage of the session.
That the viewer's "intent" -- their WILL -- could arrange this.
It also suggests that a tasker's will could affect the session.
What it comes down to, is the stronger will: Which will be dominant?
And with that, we have moved remote viewing right back into the
cradle from which it came: magick.
Love is the law, love under Will.
PJ
Reply | Forward
#2714
From: "stanley01420"
Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 10:25 am
Subject: Re: Modeling the Concepts. stanley01420
> PJ wrote:
> If intent can create the diverse perception of the universe as we
> know it, including how we organize information as individuals and as
> a species, then I think intent can certainly be utilized to affect a
> remote viewing session.
I use the human body as an analogy. The human body is
composed of many different cells. Different catagories of cells
are designed to perform different functions, they have their own
nature and their own tasking but they are all a part of and
together they comprise a single human entity with an identify of
it's own. How do the individual cells know what to do? Do the
cells that form different organs know their identity as an organ
as well as their identity as a part of the whole entity? Do they
understand that the whole entity is merely a part of a much larger
and more complex entity? What is it that runs through the whole
system keeping each cell in it's place performing it's function?
It's more than intent in my humble opinion. We are also fractals
and we also form patterns but our *conscious* mind fools us
into thinking that we are separate from the whole. It is our
subconscious mind that is the link to the whole, I think.
> This suggests that a remote viewer could clearly delineate their
> session data to apply specifically to the most important facets of
> the target, and to be presented in such a way as to best address
> those facets, and to not include information that is not relevant to
> the target and/or the usage of the session.
> That the viewer's "intent" -- their WILL -- could arrange this.
What we seldom consider is the viewers judgement. It is the
judgement of the viewer that determines what is important in the
tasking... what matters. What we need in order to complete our
task.
> It also suggests that a tasker's will could affect the session.
> What it comes down to, is the stronger will: Which will be dominant?
> And with that, we have moved remote viewing right back into the
> cradle from which it came: magick.
> Love is the law, love under Will.
Absolutely.. :-) Do what thou will be the whole of the law..:-)
trypper
---------------------------
Moderator's note: That is, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
I've talked about viewer judgement being an integral part of feedback; what the
viewer "validates" becomes feedback, whether it's real or right or not. That's
one of several reasons that sharing sessions and talking about them is
problematic, as viewers often validate data if someone else had it, even though
it's technically wrong; once they feel there's a "reason" they got that data,
(such as T.O.) they've assigned it a sense of legitimacy.
We need to share these things for educational and communal reasons, but in
limited quantities %-wise to our overall work, or we never have a clean channel
of feedback for the learning-theory process (one reason we NEED feedback) to
work.
I've had tons of sessions where I saw feedback, delighted over some aspect being
so accurate, and then realized I'd seen the feedback wrong! -- it wasn't, at
all! I torqued my own feedback, what I call a "soft" violation of protocol --
my own stupid fault for not paying sufficient attention, not an actual process
violation. I once did local targets and my feedback was my husband (who was more
harm than help) or my memory, as I couldn't go to the feedback location right on
session finish, huge mistake.
I finally realized that paying really close attention to my feedback--and only
validating what was reasonably expected to be accurate, was as important as
paying really close attention to my session. PJ
pjrv : Messages : 2713-2719 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/2713?)
00:12:43
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#2713
From: "Jon Knowles"
Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 10:14 am
Subject: Re: Modeling the Concepts. jonknowles8
PJ writes:
> And with that, we have moved remote viewing right back into the
> cradle from which it came: magick.
How about back to philosophy? I've been thinking a little about intent or
will or Will as in The World as Will and Idea, by A. Schopenhauer, a work I
never understood when I took a look at it 142 years ago. As I recall he
was strongly influenced by Eastern philosophy. Might be worth reading.
Will. Will is also of course the helping verb for the future but not for
the past. We can easily wish for a future but not for a past. Evolved
language, in English anyway, thinks time matters or differs. A contest of
wills. Contesting a will. The will to power. What is the opposite of Will?
Opposites are important, right? What is an opposite? How much of this will
be relevant to RV? Sorry, PJ, my fractals are still asleep this morning -
but you've got them branching.
> Love is the law, love under Will.
Now you're talking!
Jon
-----------------------------
Moderator's note: Well nearly all magicks source from eastern philosophy. For
example ceremonial magick, the only type I'm well acquainted with beyond various
shamanic techniques picked up here and there, is very heavily (almost entirely)
based on QBL (Kabbalah), which is pretty ancient eastern stuff, and ties into
what is known about ancient Egyptian (and even Chinese) stuff. So I imagine it
all wraps up into the same thing.
I have to admit I am biased about all of this. Short proof which is hard to come
by, I am reluctant to believe that anybody else's will has dominance over mine;
that even if 27 people retask my sessions, that this could in any way 'override'
my personal INTENT to do well in a session. I am willing to seriously consider
that there is a curious, even inexplicable correlation of data going on, but
there are at least a dozen possible explanations.
I think some part of me needs to believe that I am in control -- or at least,
that nobody ELSE has more control than I have. :-) PJ
Reply | Forward
#2718
From: "stanley01420"
Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:38 pm
Subject: Re: Modeling the Concepts. stanley01420
--- In pjrv...oups.com, "Jon Knowles"
wrote:
We can easily wish for a future but not for a past. Evolved
> language, in English anyway, thinks time matters or differs. A
contest of
> wills. Contesting a will. The will to power. What is the opposite
of Will?
> Opposites are important, right? What is an opposite? How
much of this will
> be relevant to RV?
Hi Jon, It's good to talk to you again. And on such an interesting
topic.
The opposite of will is letting go. And letting go is just as
important as will in this stuff.
Too much will and the ego gets involved... it becomes a matter of
being right. There is no judgement, no purpose serving a higher
good.
Control freaks think will means having things their own way but
that's not the case. Will does not exist in a vacuum. It's not just
about the viewer.
The viewer is working with an existing system that has patterns
and a consciousness of it's own. One has to be able to see into
the patterns to choose the right way or path to achieve an
objective that works. To 'see' the 'way'.
At least... that's what I surmise.
Regards,
trypper
Reply | Forward
#2719
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Subject: Re: Modeling the Concepts. docsavagebill
"I can control this Magik just as well as the
Sorcerer."
M. Mouse....
Palyne said:
>
> I think some part of me needs to believe that I am
> in control -- or at least, that nobody ELSE has more
> control than I have. :-) PJ
|