pjrv : Messages : 411-411 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/411?)

 21:32:28

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#411 
	From: "dennanm" 
Date: Mon Aug 5, 2002 1:44 pm
Subject: Sessions with Self (2.1) 	dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  	  	

Following the intro are session notes (my session# 2.1, which means
lab notebook 2, session 1, (session 2 on the same target would be
2.1.1).

I started a new lab notebook for my RV, and this book is dedicated to
sessions done "with" myself. There is no structure unless you count I
make a point to include Q&A in each session. I 'talk to myself'
throughout the session, in writing.  I see this as talking with
Aspects of Self.  Others might see it differently. Some would
consider it talking to the subconscious; some might even call it
channeling, but to me that is something different (though not as
pigeonholed as most make it).  I just write it out like a letter.
All the sessions in this book are 'experimental' in various ways.

The first session in my new book came day before yesterday, when I
hadn't done a session in a week.  I'd done some serious meditations
related to psi and felt like I needed to 'integrate' so I gave myself
a little time, till I felt it was okay to move on.  It must have been
a good decision, because the two targets I've done so far went pretty
well, not great data sessions but I was really pleased with my
personal experience of them, with feeling I was honestly learning
something from this and getting to know myself.  Usually when I
haven't done a session in days, my first one on returning I am lucky
to have a session at all; not wrong data, just NO data.  I didn't
have that issue this time.

On the first session I also tried a version of the "Image Streaming"
that many of us have been reading about lately, with the
question, "Show me a visual or concept that will help me get into
good contact with this target."  What didn't occur to me was that the
answer to that would BE target data.  I didn't write it down until
after feedback because I thought it was just some 'symbolic' prep --
I was thinking, something I could use for EVERY session, you know,
just some imagery that might put me in better touch with myself, it
didn't occur to me until halfway through the session that maybe that
prep related TO the session, and every prep would be different. When
I got similar data in-session, I thought I was being influenced by
what came before, but at least I did once make a note of it.

I was quite impressed with how clearly the "concept visual" came to
me when I asked: I perceived something spinning around quickly
(clockwise), and then it was also moving around in circles (counter-
clockwise).  It made three complete circles, and then stopped (still
spinning but not moving), and a flat/solid thing came up the middle,
from the point of the spinning thing, straight across the circular-
area it had just defined.  Then the flat-thing went way up high, then
down low.  That was it. Then I started my session.

I got a few "sound attempts" in the session - where my mind gets a
sound and tries to find words that might fit the sense.  I am new at
this, so I suck at it, but I think if I practice with this I will get
better. On this target, I got one I still haven't figured out;
another that was 'floot? flood? foot?' and another that was 'sister?
sifter? sistine?' - the target was a search&rescue helicopter at
night, with its floodlight on, looking for that Swissaire plane
crash.  Maybe with practice it will improve.  I also got a funny
sound during my Q&A, I said, "What could you say about this target?"
and the answer I got (from 'myself' or 'one of my aspects' - like a
person answering, but 'sensed' not heard) was, "Whew! Whew! Whew!"
which I realized at the time was "making the sound of a siren."  That
was kind of funny.

Normally, I do not feel myself IN the target, excepting the rare but
occasional brief-rapport-as-another-person.  In this session, I felt
first as if I'd sort of gone at the ground and done a partial
somersault, that shape of motion; then later in the session I felt as
if I were flying, and sort of lurching up into the air. On feedback I
decided the first might have actually been the way of the plane crash
and the second the helicopter in the focus, since I switched back and
forth between those two for much of the session. Of course, there is
no feedback on such things, we can only guess.

One of my goals in session is to have some clue about the nature of
the target. That doesn't mean I need to know what it is. I usually
don't. It just means that if I were presented the target and four
decoys on feedback, and my target was the hindenberg, I want to be
darn sure that I got enough 'contact' to choose that one over the
decoy of say, the swimming ducks. ;-)  No but seriously- I'd also
want to choose it accurately over a volcano, an airplane, etc.  I was
wrong about what this target was likely to be, but right about the
situation, so it was a so-so result.

Another of my goals is to have at least one piece of data -- a
descriptive or concept -- that is _totally distinctive to the
target_.  Even if it's real simple.  Something unlikely to be in most
other targets.  So in this one I got "streaky in the sky; reminds me
of northern lights, fires or strobes" - and the feedback showed the
helicopter with the floodlight slashing through the darkness. I
figured that was specific enough.

I am being easy on myself for now, my goal is to learn about myself,
and learn how to feel doing it RIGHT, more than obsessing on what I
might have done wrong.

It was confusing to me that there were actually two focuses in the
target; in feedback, I would say, there is only one focus: the
helicopter searching.  But in the session, it was obvious that the
main focus appeared to be a 'manmade container' which had had
something major happen to it, I thought it was a building because I
sensed it was on ground or water, so I thought it blew up or
something.

I am working a target pool more advanced than the simple targets I
used to practice with eons ago, targets many of which
have "concepts/events" attached as I wanted to work on "larger more
complex" targets. I am just starting again into all this after years
out of it (hence my new list, so I've someone to talk with about it!)
so I am a beginner all over again, not that I ever practiced
regularly or extended enough to move beyond that years ago anyway.
(I joke that I am 'intellectually competent but functionally
illiterate' at RV, lol.)

More complex targets have a variety of session issues but one is that
you may get a lot of data about one thing, then ask a question about
the target and get data that actually applies to another thing,
because unlike beginner targets, it may not be a single-focus, and
may be event/situational as well.  So for example, after getting data
that was clearly about the plane:

{Describe the target from the opposite side}

The back has partly fallen off ... smoke? ...

{Describe the target from 50 feet above.}

Shell-like. Skeletal? - or missing much mass it had before.

{Describe the target 24 hours previously.}

Stable. Solid.  But I feel the energy turbulence of its future.

{So are you saying target focus in feedback contains an "event?"}

Yes.

{Describe the target 24 hours after photo.}

Yukky.  Messy.  Like dirt, deep.

I then got data in same Q&A line but apparently on the search
helicopter in feedback, not the plane:

{Describe the function of the target _normally_}

"Observation."

That was confusing, as I couldn't see how something on the ground or
water burning would have an ordinary function of observing.  An
analyst can pull this stuff apart if they know at least a little bit
about the target's nature, but it's tough in-session.

This session had two experiences that I really loved:

1.  Above when I said, "I feel the energy turbulence of its future."
I class that as 'metaphysical' data.  That was a sense (future)
within a sense (turbulence/trauma) within a sense (currently
stable).  Kind of unique 'nesting' of data there ("recursive data?"
lol), it was really cool.

2.  I said, {What color is the target at focus/feedback point?}  And
I got, "Q. What's black and white and red all over?"  I said, {LOL!
You just made a joke!} Like the kids' joke.  But I had this sense of
irony, and black humor, as part of that.  I thought (didn't write
down - should have) maybe the target was something white, burning so
had black smoke, and the red was either fire - or blood - or both. It
was odd to get not only an actual joke as a response, but to feel the
very subtle humor - some positive, some a bit twisted.

I made quite a few mistakes in the session.  I didn't write down a
bunch of AOLs that were subtle or fleeting (I wrote down others). I
didn't rewrite one data piece that I sensed I'd translated wrong and
should revisit (I should have). I forgot to write a 'presentation
session' which I've sworn I'll do for any session with enough data
for it (sort of a summary, but a highly selective summary, with
sketch if I've gotten one).  I didn't report some minor things; like
when I used "will and emotion" to strongly wish for target contact I
felt nauseated, but I thought that was an energy-result, not response
to target.

There's one other thing worth mentioning, but I'll include it along
with notes on the next session, as the same issue was stronger there.

PJ