pjrv : Messages : 1983-2034 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1983?)
23:36:43
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#1983
From: greenmn900...
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 6:55 am
Subject: Re: Personal notes about AOL/sessions greenmn900...
Hi PJ,
I agree with you that just about any data that reaches conscious awareness
has been processed at least to some degree.
I also don't think a word like "car" is anymore likely to be an aol than a
word like "rough" if it is really a description of what you are perceiving -
as oppsed to a conclusion based upon what you're perceiving. If I see a car,
I see a car - it's not an aol. If I get information like "metal, moves,
wheels, shiny," etc. and then write "car" it's obviously an aol. This is the
reason aols tend to be more correct as you move deeper into the session, your
conclusions are based upon more information than the conclusions at the
beginning of the session are.
I think some people tend to categorize anything that's very specific or
complex as being an aol, when it may not be the case. What matters is
whether you are putting down on paper ONLY what you perceive. The instant
you aren't doing exactly that, it's an aol.
I tend to get only specifics. You rarely will see general descriptives like
"hard, smooth, wet," etc. in my sessions. So my sessions have more
information like "house, barn, dog, human," etc. In a way, this is good -
when I have a hit, it's undeniably a hit because the information is so
specific. On the other hand, when I miss, it's very obvious that I've missed
completely because the things I've put on paper are so specific that it's
readily apparent when they are wrong.
Avoiding aols is one reason I think sketching your perceptions is better than
trying to find a descriptor that matches. You can sketch something without
having to put a label on it and without having the slightest idea of what it
might be. It keeps the left-brain from kicking-in as much, I think. But on
the other hand, it's hard to sketch a perception like "hard", so you have to
use descriptors as well, lol.
Warm Regards,
Don
Reply | Forward
#1997
From: "David Humphries"
Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:14 am
Subject: Re: Personal notes about AOL/sessions a_healey56
> PJ wrote:
> When they would guess a spot for a ship, they
> would then say, 'MISS', as if (a) they already
> knew that (then why did they guess it?!) and (b)
> I then realized, it was because they DID NOT
> WANT TO BE WRONG, and did not want ME to TELL them
> that they were wrong -- so they wanted to be the
> first to say THEMSELVES that they were wrong.
> Then being right would be a pleasant surprise but
> being wrong would not be difficult to deal with.
Just another possibility - maybe they both semi-consciously realized that
they had once again let their logic win out over their intuition. I do this
all the time, and there is a feeling that accompanies doing it. With the
help of doing many, many RV sessions this last year, most of which have
either fast or immediate feedback, I'm becoming more aware of what the
intuitive perception feels like, and learning to trust it more.
> I didn't really do this until I started doing sessions for someone
> else. I've never done sessions for anybody else before so I didn't
> have that ego/fear-of-failure response.
This is why doing practice sessions with public scrutiny is helpful for me.
I won't do good on a session if there is not a really good purpose for doing
it in my mind, which will lead to me having a certain degree of seriousness
about doing it. Others may not feel this way, it may just be the discipline
that I personally need. While we all probably have some degree of
fear-of-failure, what motivates me even more is not wanting my data to
contaminate everyone else's in the analysis on the FV targets (even though
most of the sessions I've submitted on FV have been like inviting in the
plague:-)
Dave
Reply | Forward
#1998
From: "Glyn"
Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:37 pm
Subject: RE: Personal notes about AOL/sessions gebega
Hi Don,
I agree with what you say about preferring an undeniable hit. Every time I
do a session, I am painfully aware that if my list of descriptors is long
enough, some of them are quite likely to match with elements of just about
anything on the planet (and maybe off of it :-). Because of that, (when
doing an ERV-type session anyway), I now try to keep it as brief as I can;
say about ten minutes after getting 'centred' is about as long as I take
nowadays. I know that some of the apparent matches in some of my past
sessions have been because of going on too long and trying to 'force'
things, and ending up with a huge list.......which is why I am now so hard
on myself when judging my progress. We have to be our own sternest critics I
think.
In hot pursuit of the indisputable I need to move more towards specifics
too, and I have occasionally made a 'leap' and labelled something, but when
I have said things like 'dog' I have been wrong, so I prefer to stick with
'animal' for a while until I can hone things a little :-). It's going to be
a slow process I think. The main thing now is to gain familiarity with my
own subconscious, how my mind works....start to recognise when something is
real data or conjecture.
I have come to notice that I am better at picking some things up than
others. However what is most important to me is that after 4 years I find
that I am everso slightly more consistent in doing so. Small improvement
then, but heartening ;-)
Kind regards,
Glyn
Reply | Forward
#2009
From: greenmn900...
Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:45 am
Subject: Re: Personal notes about AOL/sessions greenmn900...
Glyn,
> You wrote:
> "In hot pursuit of the indisputable I need to
> move more towards specifics too, and I have
> occasionally made a 'leap' and labelled something,
> but when I have said things like 'dog' I have
> been wrong, so I prefer to stick with 'animal'
> for a while until I can hone things a little :-).
> It's going to be a slow process I think. The
> main thing now is to gain familiarity with my
> own subconscious, how my mind works....start to
> recognise when something is real data or conjecture"
I know what you mean. I think this is something that improves with practice.
From what I can tell, a persons' "accuracy" (the percentage of time they
make target contact) never really improves much beyond the initial beginnings
in RV. But the "reliability" (the amount of correct vs. incorrect
information and the amount and degree of detail) improves a lot.
You remindeded me of a session I did about a year ago for my sister and her
husband. My little sister gets premonitions a lot but her husband always
laughs at her and tells her that ESP is all BS. Now, some of my family had
seen my RV work but my sister's husband never had, so she asked me to do a
session to prove to him the psi is real. I warned her that I miss the target
up to 40% of the time and so, they should give me a shot at 4 targets and
that, in at least one of those, I should get a pretty good hit. As it turned
out, I got lucky and nailed the first one, but this is how it went:
The target was a picture from a magazine of a little baby girl with black
hair holding flowers in front of her, looking at them. They had put the
picture in an envelope but they didn't cover up the back side and I ended up
getting stuff from both sides of the page. (On the back of the page was a
picture of some kind of diaper-dispensing thing, I'm not sure what the hell
it was). First, I got lots of different stuff about a bathroom. Then,
suddenly, I got a very quick but clear image of a teenage BLOND-HAIRED girl
holding flowers. I drew it and wrote next to it "blond girl, holding flowers
in front of her". I closed my eyes and then I got an image of a BLACK-HAIRED
little girl. She looked a lot like my little sister when she was a baby.
So, I sketched that and wrote, "Black- haired little girl". Then I ended the
session as I wasn't getting anymore data.
With that session, it seemed like I got closer to the target the longer I was
in-session. If I had just wrote "girl holding flowers" and left off the
wrong "blond" part, I would have nailed it there. Would I have still got the
following image of a black-haired baby girl if I had done that? I don't
know. I still don't know why I got the image of a blond girl in the first
place. The "holding flowers in front of her" was dead-on accurate, but the
"blond" part obviously wasn't.
I think the best we can ever get is a very close representation of reality.
The closer we get, the better. But I don't think we ever really get it
exactly as it actually is - although that's what I keep shooting for.
Best Regards,
Don
Reply | Forward
#2015
From: "Glyn"
Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:58 am
Subject: The importance (or not) of Tasking and Coordinates gebega
Hi Don,
Just read your great mail to Dick on HRVG.
I agree with what you say about 'overlay' being a viewer problem and
nothing to do with the tasker, in fact I agree with all you said, including
the bit about Randi and his ilk ;-). I won't link to your mail without your
permission, but others here would probably find it interesting.
Many think that the tasker's 'focus' when setting the target is what points
a viewer at the target, and this is why the meaningless coords we use
actually work (always an intriguing mystery). I used to think along those
lines too at the beginning, but now I think that it may go a bit like
this.........
Conscious Mind (Me #1):
'OK, I've got the coordinates, I'll do a
session and see what I can get'.
Subconscious Mind (Me #2):
'What! just a jumble of letters and
numbers, do you think I'm psychic or something!? 'I dunno about you, but I
need to know where I'm going mate, .... I'll just nip off to our future and
find out what we are supposed to be looking at here, then I'll have
something to work with. Trouble is, I do all this, but you are so wrapped up
in yourself that you always make a mess of what I give you anyway! Can't you
learn anything?
LOL!! Well not exactly like that maybe, but the process may be similar.
Makes more sense to me (but of course that doesn't necessarily mean it makes
sense to anyone else :-)). The tasker may have some role in inspiring
high-interest and may even influence the viewer because of the 'guru' thing
you mentioned though, but they are not responsible for guiding the viewer to
the target IMO.
Kind regards,
Glyn
--------------------
Moderator's note: Here's the link. I know Don won't mind. -- PJ
http://www.hrvg.org/cgi-bin/hrvg_bbs_hotwax/webbbs_config.pl?read=16540
Reply | Forward
#2022
From: "Eva "
Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:08 am
Subject: Re: The importance (or not) of Tasking and Coordinates k9caninek9
One clue is that you don't need coordinates. Heck, psychics have
been doing it for centuries without lists of numbers. The
subconscious can easily figure out what the target is going to be.
It doesn't need numbers. If you will recall, the purpose of the
numbers was originally to take the place of real coordinates. ANd
those were only used because it was suspected at the time that real
coords were needed. Nowadays, I think coords exist mostly as a place
to launch indeograms and also as a mental security blanket.
-E
> Glyn Flyers wrote:
> Many think that the tasker's 'focus' when
> setting the target is what points
> a viewer at the target, and this is why the
> meaningless coords we use
> actually work (always an intriguing mystery).
> I used to think along those
> lines too at the beginning, but now I think
> that it may go a bit like this.........
Reply | Forward
#2014
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 10:37 pm
Subject: Re: Personal notes about AOL/sessions Rich_crv
> Glyn wrote:
> I have come to notice that I am better at picking some things up than
> others. However what is most important to me is that after 4 years I find
> that I am everso slightly more consistent in doing so. Small improvement
> then, but heartening ;-)
Time sure flies. I dont know how or if I have improved over the years. I
think
its mostly in being a bit less critical of my ( or anyone's ) work. I still am
apprehensive
about "lowering the bar". :)
But, considering that there are people who had done this as their day job for
several years
and still are inconsistant, regularly off target and haven't found a way to get
Randi's money
.......... well, its amazin' that so many others claim to be so much better,
also without
getting Randi's money. :)
Rich
Reply | Forward
#2019
From: "Glyn"
Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:59 pm
Subject: RE: Personal notes about AOL/sessions gebega
Hi Rich,
That snippet of mine you quoted below reads as if I'm saying I can pick up
some things better than other *people*. (I wish :-))... what I actually
mean't was that I can pick up some types of *impressions* better than I can
some other types. Just to get that straight in case some may think I'm
blowing my trumpet when I've only got a whistle :-)..... there are some of
those out there that do that I'm sure, but I'm not one of them.
Yes, I know what you mean about some viewers claiming to have a very high
hit rate when you have no way of knowing what their definition of a 'hit'
might be. Personally, I am obviously really pleased if I get some
congruency, but to my mind I would only have 'a hit' if I could do a 'Joe
McMoneagle'.....so needless to say, I've never had one :-).
Seriously though, there is really no way, unless people publish their
sessions (and there are not enough of those), to judge what they do mean
when they say they are good at RV (Given that the basic protocol of
'blindness' is met and the target can be validated).
I just wish there were more of the professional and really good viewers'
sessions to be seen on the net. I needed a yardstick when I set out to
learn RV. What is the average viewer capable of ? How good a viewer should
I expect my professional RV teacher to be? I had books, but books tend to
show the good stuff, not the average. Many 'schools' required financial
outlay before you could even look at examples of what they claimed they
could teach you to do.
One of the things that attracted me to HRVG in the first place was the
number of sessions that they have published in full and for anyone to see.
There are some really good ones that I can try to emulate (if only :-)), but
there are also some of the more 'average' sessions for me to compare with
my own efforts. That is so important IMO.
Kind regards,
Glyn
Reply | Forward
#2034
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 7:21 pm
Subject: Re: Personal notes about AOL/sessions Rich_crv
> I just wish there were more of the
> professional and really good viewers'
> sessions to be seen on the net. I
> needed a yardstick when I set out to
> learn RV. What is the average viewer
> capable of ? How good a viewer should
> I expect my professional RV teacher to be?
I agree 100%. I don't understand why the "professional", experienced viewers
are
so reluctant to post their work. If they follow their own advice they must have
tons
of practice sessions that are not secret or proprietary. I often suspect that
the
"bar" isnt at all that high and that is the ---real--- secret. What you see is
what you will
get and what you see are 99% student work or put another way, average, typical
work..... what you can really expect. Maybe the "great" work is really just the
handfull of exceptions to the average. If someone's day job was RVing full
time
for several years, then I would expect a few home runs, but they are apparently
few
and far between since after all these years there isnt enough new material from
a-n-y-b-o-d-y to do one chapter of a sequel to Schnabel's book.
> I had books, but books tend to
> show the good stuff, not the average.
Yeah, and so much repition. Do Pat Price's derrick drawings hold the record?
:)
> Many 'schools' required financial
> outlay before you could even look at examples of what they claimed they
> could teach you to do.
And how many did one see?
> One of the things that attracted me to HRVG in the first place was the
> number of sessions that they have published in full and for anyone to see.
> There are some really good ones that I can try to emulate (if only :-)), but
> there are also some of the more 'average' sessions for me to compare with
> my own efforts. That is so important IMO.
Yes but they publish only the best ones which may be a small percentage of the
total work, not that it would be much help to see tons of poor sessions, but to
really get a handle on what to expect or shoot for there should be some data
that says..... viewer x has 5 sessions out of 75 published.
Also, how much of Glenn's work is shown? If he is the standard, I would hope to
see "tons" of examples. I believe that he also said that there are others from
his unit even better but no examples (even anonymously ) either.
Rich
|