RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion, Yahoo Groups.
Source Location: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/
Filetype: Archive. Topic: Remote Viewing. Blocked: by topic detail.
Archive Storage: www.firedocs.com/pjrv/ and http://www.dojopsi.info/pjrv/
Archivist: Palyne PJ Gaenir (PJRV, Palyne, Firedocs RV, TKR and the Dojo Psi.)

begin archive

pjrv : Messages : 411-411 of 4038


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

// end archive

Top of Page