pjrv : Messages : 1824-1855 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1824?)
23:29:20
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#1824
From: "liansidorov71 "
Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:59 pm
Subject: some future session bleed-throughs liansidorov71
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
I'm not sure what's up with my brain, but twice in the last couple of
months I have gotten clear elements from "future sessions" in my
practice. The first time (Oct 29) I got the normal target data (a
group of tents in a field) then "fireworks" - which were not there,
but were a clear feature of the Nov 1st session (two targets into the
future).
The second time (Nov 22) there was fantastic correlation with the
target (practically a direct hit, all the way to the conclusion) but
it had nothing to do with that night's session (a complete disaster
because of protocol breakdown): it was the target designated two days
later!! (note: there were no sessions in between).
As if that's not confusing enough, I routinely end up viewing the
reverse of the page I task for myself in National Geographic! This is
not a matter of "picking the best fit" - the data is clearly stemming
from that.
Why am I wired upside down and can I ask for a refund?!
PS I would also appreciate some suggestions about widening my field
of "vision" - I tend to doorknob quite a lot and usually miss the
background altogether. have tried to task myself to move around the
target and usually that helps some with getting additional dimensions
for the particular object I first locked onto, but most of the time
this "object" seems to just float in a nondescript space so there's
nothing to pursue there.
Reply | Forward
#1827
From: Dee Leslie
Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:42 pm
Subject: Re: some future session bleed-throughs myratadee
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi! Seeing the back of a page that the target is on
is quite common because you look at both when you are
verifying your target contact. It is a good idea to
scan in the picture or page before viewing so that the
only page present when looking at the target, is the
one you are looking at. If that is not possible, find
some way never to look at that back of the page!
As for target overlay, that too is common, especially
if you are noticing in the future target that you
viewed it in an earlier target. It has to do with
association. Your viewing is connected to your
association in whatever time frame you look at the
target. This can occur each time you view a target
that has the same elements as something you noticed
was 'off target' for a previous session. Try to get
in the habit of closing a session after you review the
target. Write on your paper, session closed, date and
time. That should help.
I have found that I often see myself viewing a target,
documenting that I am viewing the target and in the
target if it is one I have viewed before. It can get
complicated. Also on targets that we use frequently
for practice sessions, we often document seeing other
viewers there as well. Overlay and energy signatures
can reek havoc on viewing!
As for door knobbing - use to be one of my problems.
Try doing a movement exercise to change your
perspective. Since I am not familiar with the type of
viewing you are doing, I do not have any 'in protocol'
suggestions. However, in SRV we use various cues.
Some involve retaking the coordinates, others involve
writing a sentence such as 'move to the center of the
target and describe; move to directly above the target
and describe, etc. Or simply write 'move to a
different perspective of the target and describe',
Dee Leslie
Certified SRV instructor
Reply | Forward
#1836
From: "liansidorov71 "
Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:22 pm
Subject: Re: energy signatures at the target liansidorov71
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hey Dee,
these are indeed very helpful comments, I think I'm finally beginning
to understand what's happening with the page reversal problem. It's
also possible that one of the two sides has more "interest" than the
other and that may be the one that the mind locks onto - although
sometimes one gets a mixture of elements from both.
Since most of the time I just give myself a page number from Nat.
Geographic, I guess the solution is to never look at the reverse of
the designated page, until my sub learns its lesson ;-
The other thing I would very much like to hear more about is related
to these energy signatures and perception of other viewers "at the
target".
> I have found that I often see myself viewing a target,
> documenting that I am viewing the target and in the
> target if it is one I have viewed before. It can get
> complicated. Also on targets that we use frequently
> for practice sessions, we often document seeing other
> viewers there as well. Overlay and energy signatures
> can reek havoc on viewing!
I have read about this in connection to some old cold war
applications (don't worry - it was in the garden variety RV book
collections ;-) but there were very few details about it. How exactly
does this work? What do you perceive? And, very importantly, is there
a time window after which such a "fingerprint" decays - can you feel
that someone viewed this, say, a day ago - or does it work only for
simultaneous viewing? Do you feel pushed off course, is your signal
altered by the mental processes or the "target probing" of the other
viewers? Do you get images that you feel may be part of their mental
process, rather than anything to do with the target?
I think this is quite important to understand from the point of view
of the overall mechanism... I'm not into mind control and conspiracy
theories ;-), I personally think that's a very slippery slope it's
best to stay away from - but being able to formulate some basic
observations about the way we interact/exercise intent in that
strange interpersonal phase space is a first step toward
understanding the interface between mind and spacetime.
Thanks again and I'm looking forward to your comments.
lian
Reply | Forward
#1837
From: Dee Leslie
Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: Re: energy signatures at the target myratadee
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi Lian,
Here is my response. FYI, I started using 'approved'
remote viewing techniques in 1997, when I trained with
Farsight in SRV.
> Since most of the time I just give myself a page
> number from Nat.
> Geographic, I guess the solution is to never look at
> the reverse of
> the designated page, until my sub learns its lesson
I agree. The subby is curious and tends to seek more
information than we had planned on giving.
> The other thing I would very much like to hear more
> about is related
> to these energy signatures and perception of other
> viewers "at the
> target".
The signatures of other viewers known to me occurred
at targets they had viewed about a year previously.
They were less distinct than the actual target, but
still there. They also appeared at the target at odd
angles and unusual locations. Some of the targets
were etheric non-verifiables which seem to create
interest and curiosity (creation of universe,
Midwayers, Gray targets, etc).
I have seen energy signatures at crime scenes viewed
that lasts for years. Ordinarily, this has nothing to
do with 'visitors' but with the people involved at the
time of the crime. The key is the 'emotion' that
someone brings with them - positive or negative, it
doesn't matter, both are equal in reactivity.
Emotions are the catalyst for energy transformation
and thus makes it visible. It is sort of a physics
thing where action = reaction and in this case the
agent creating the action (catalyst) is human emotion.
The targets I have seen myself at were frequently
violent targets - like nuclear tests, tornadoes and
Auschwitz. These targets were ones in which I was
immersed in the center of the target - where the blast
was the strongest, or the emotionals the most violent
when I fist viewed the targets. The next time I was
given those targets, I viewed myself viewing the
target and also viewed myself right in the middle of
the target at the same time. It felt as if I had
'split' into 3 - viewing a target, viewing myself
viewing the target and seeing myself in the center of
the target. I documented this in the sessions but it
took a lot of time away from the actual target data.
There have been other targets that I have repeated 'by
accident' recently - monitors were accidently given
the same targets. These targets were more benign in
nature. I did not see myself at any of them, but my
sketches and data were nearly identical and I stated
numerous times that this was the same target I had
recently viewed. So, this mix up in targeting
actually gave me the opportunity to observe how I
responded to more benign targets. I had not left a
signature there.
So, for me at least, it appears that if I or another
viewer responds emotionally to a target (even with
strong curiosity), then they leave a signature of some
type which seems to depend on the amount/strength of
emotional response. That signature can then be seen
by others visiting the same target.
> a time window after which such a "fingerprint"
> decays - can you feel
> that someone viewed this, say, a day ago - or does
> it work only for
> simultaneous viewing?
The group was viewing the same target for some of
these, but the people I saw were not viewing the
target at that time. I found out later that they had
viewed the target, perhaps a year or so ago. I
suspect that since they were all involved in target
selection and knew what it was, that they were
'remembering' their experience at the target while the
rest of us were viewing, thus placing themselves there
again.
> Do you feel pushed off course,
> is your signal
> altered by the mental processes or the "target
> probing" of the other
> viewers?
No.
> Do you get images that you feel may be part
> of their mental
> process, rather than anything to do with the target?
No. Haven't experienced that to my knowledge.
I have seen firsthand what remote mind control can do
to an individual. Granted, there would be denial if I
brought these cases out publicly, but that doesn't
stop my knowing about it. I have also been involved
in (recipient of) remote influencing. Yes, it is hard
to prove on the physical level, but on several
occaisions when I felt 'blocked' (generally suspected
myself as the source of this), my monitor and I did a
movement exercise to the source. Let's just say that
these provided visuals that were unexpected - often of
1 or several individuals unknown to either of us.
And, my monitor, who 'goes to the target site' with
me, also saw the same thing. In one instance, my
monitor actually viewed the reaction of the 'source'
individual who noticed our energy signatures present
at his location.
> I think this is quite important to understand from
> the point of view
> of the overall mechanism... I'm not into mind
> control and conspiracy
> theories ;-), I personally think that's a very
> slippery slope it's
> best to stay away from - but being able to formulate
> some basic
> observations about the way we interact/exercise
> intent in that
> strange interpersonal phase space is a first step
> toward
> understanding the interface between mind and
> spacetime.
My philosophy is that we create our universe by our
thoughts, especially when we have emotions attached to
these thoughts. Thus, we can influence outcomes for
ourselves and those around us. This is also possible
with remote viewing. It is a technique I use in my
remote healing practice.
> Thanks again and I'm looking forward to your
> comments.
This discussion was helpful for me as well. I have
discovered that perhaps I need to include a mantra
before remote viewing regular targets - one that
states something like 'my intention is to accurately
perceive and record data from the target, not to
interfere or influence'. You are right on when you
say that going to a target may affect the outomes.
Each of us that has reacted to a situation either
enhances the positive or the negative energy in some
way, depending on our reactions.
Thanks! Dee
---------------------------
Moderator's note: "Approved" remote viewing techniques! A funny way to put it,
given everybody's techniques are each "approved" by their own inventor. In
practice, I am not sure what such a statement would equate to. But it looks good
on paper! :-) -- PJ
Reply | Forward
#1838
From: aeonblueau8008...
Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 2:40 am
Subject: Re: Re: energy signatures at the target terri8008
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
My opinion and experience.. picking up on other viewers at a site, the site
kinda feels crowded.
On one of my early targets from one of the military guys, I ERVed the target
but somehow thru another viewer and monitor experience that had occurred
months earlier, they were/had been working the same site. I correctly
identified what they both looked like and their surroundings.. also it seems
they worked another target that session which I correctly identified, all
that was thoroughly confusing for me. The icing on the cake was that I (first
time) bi-located to both the first target site and the room where they worked
the "past" session, and I got 'in' the viewers head. Another time/oddity..
was during the first viewers/monitor session report, viewer (oddly)reported
being observed during session, by what viewer thought was another viewer.. so
theoretically from a 'no time/all time' perspective, we all RVed the target
site at once, or it was just an amazingly crowded RV site.
Another target I worked, there were 2 teams, basically a ERV and CRV,it was a
large project about half dozen phases and 45 sessions day after day, I
started to pick up on,others.. what I thought were viewers at the site. They
didn't "fit" (in) at the site, they seemed to be observing in sort of a
static fashion. I described 2 of them, and what they were wearing. and I was
correct. There was another viewer who seemed to present their self in
amerIndian garb.. seemed to cloak theirself in some sort of covering or
mental camouflage, I figured out who that was later. Seems possibly what ever
ritual/belief you go thru before session seems to or can stick to or with
you.
To the extent that you pick up on other viewers, present or past, I think
depends on your skill or innate talent, or what your attracted to, what you
like to do. I'm fairly good at locating folks and sort of merging with them,
as opposed to say.. just reporting and describing another life form on site,
I really enjoy thoroughly getting in-to them.
amazing stuff.. and then you just get used to it and take it for granted.
After some of those personal experiences.. I started experimenting with my
tasking/s.
Like I say it's quite a fine art, simple yet deeply complex and should be
quite precise. One time I tasked an outbounder. I also had the beacon
'think', mental image of a simple object while on site, I had about 8 viewers
working it. (only)One of the viewers reported at the end of session(he also
nailed the site) the oddity that popped in.. a red apple, had absolutely
nothing to do with the site. That was the added object or subject.
So I started fooling around with 'messages' or communications during tasking,
along the line of sub-taskings.. :-)))))))))))))))))
amazing frickin stuff . . . . . .
I'd forgotten most of that, I've forgotten so much.. that was kinda fun in a
magical sorta way.
all the best ~~Terri
Reply | Forward
#1843
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 7:17 pm
Subject: Re: some future session bleed-throughs Rich_crv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Dee Leslie wrote:
> I have found that I often see myself viewing a target,
> documenting that I am viewing the target and in the
> target if it is one I have viewed before. It can get
> complicated. Also on targets that we use frequently
> for practice sessions, we often document seeing other
> viewers there as well. Overlay and energy signatures
> can reek havoc on viewing!
Hi Dee,
That is very interesting. What kind of data do you get that identifies you
as already having been / or being there? What kind of data tells you that
other viewers are there? Can you ID them? Or more generally, how do you
know they are RVers as opposed to just other people?
Can you scan a few pages of data where this has occurred?
------------
PJ: Maybe you can add this question to Mel's interview. It seems that
this occurance of sensing other RVers at a site came up somewhere in the
Stargate history stories. I can sort of understand this in ERV but find it
hard to see how it would come up definatively in CRV/SRV.
Rich
Reply | Forward
#1844
From: "David Humphries"
Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 11:40 pm
Subject: Re: some future session bleed-throughs a_healey56
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
I've mentioned this before, but maybe this would be a good time to bring it
up again. There have been about 4-5 times when I've been viewing a target
and all of the sudden I notice someone looking straight at me.
Coincidentally (or maybe not?), each time it has been a woman (a different
one each time), and to the best of my recollection, they always seem to be
standing, and I see them from the waist up. One possible explanation that
was given was that they were women at the target location who sensed that
they were being looked at. I guess this is a possible explanation, but it
didn't really resonate with me. Perhaps what I've seen is similar to what
Dee and Rich are talking about?
Dave
Reply | Forward
#1848
From: "PJ Gaenir "
Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 3:14 am
Subject: Re: some future session bleed-throughs dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
> David Humphries wrote:
> all of the sudden I notice someone looking straight at me.
> Coincidentally (or maybe not?), each time
> it has been a woman (a different
> one each time), and to the best of my recollection,
> they always seem to be
> standing, and I see them from the waist up.
> One possible explanation that
> was given was that they were women at the
> target location who sensed that
> they were being looked at. I guess this is a
> possible explanation, but it
> didn't really resonate with me.
I don't know about anybody else. But I have often 'seen' quite
visually people in a session and they are not in the target nor did I
think they were in the target. In every case they were part
of 'symbology', and in retrospect, it was as if I had many people
inside me and one of them was "dramatizing" some information ABOUT
the target for me. Literally, like dressing up or acting out or
something... but sometimes they are merely looking at me.
I have always interpreted those as "aspects of me," not of
encountering someone else at the target, but of course, this
experience may be wholly different than what others are talking about
with others perceived at the target, I assume the data that they
are 'part of/at' the target is part of that perception or they
wouldn't make the assumption to begin with.
I have perceived other people during session, either who were
apparently tuning in to me at that time (or something), or who had
some sort of agenda with me; I always figure that's just intuitively
picking up info that I am oblivious to in conscious life though --
that for whatever reason, I opened up for the session and a grocery
list of Stuff I Ought To Know is waiting to finally come through,
lol! But those things don't even relate to the target.
(What's pretty humorous is that my ability to get THAT data seems
substantially better than my ability to get such complex data in a
target. Must be a survival thing! I even get names or concepts of
whom, and layers-of-motivation, and things like that. What I would
GIVE to be able to perceive - hell, even if wrong, lol, just to
perceive it would be novel! - that kind of info in regular RV! I've
a few times gotten "nested conceptual info" that reminds me of that,
but not very often.)
I've tuned into (like 'momentarily being') a person AT the target,
that I STILL didn't think was THE target (and was right) but believed
to be present at it during that time (but not 'the' target).
But none of these are perceiving another viewer 'at' the target.
It seems to me a viewer would either have to have some massive
identity association with a target for another to perceive them, or
for whatever reason the one perceiving must have their own reasons.
Because if there is no time (let alone space), then everybody who
EVER perceived that target, psychically or in person, is an equal
part of its overall psychic gestalt. So you know, technically there
are 'other viewers at a target' on just about every target. I'd
say, "why" one chooses to perceive and interpret that is the most
interesting question!
PJ
Reply | Forward
#1855
From: "liansidorov71"
Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 12:12 pm
Subject: energy signatures/ too late to add this to Mel's interview? liansidorov71
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Rich wrote:
> PJ: Maybe you can add this question to
> Mel's interview. It seems that this occurance
> of sensing other RVers at a site came up
> somewhere in the Stargate history stories.
> I can sort of understand this in ERV but find
> it hard to see how it would come up
> definatively in CRV/SRV.
I agree, this topic is full of potential implications for how we
create association basins and their relative "weights", but it is
difficult to sort out the different layers of reality. I think it
takes someone with a lot of experience to be able to differentiate
between them, and Mel's word on this would carry a lot of authority.
Lian
Reply | Forward
#1852
From: "baillie lois "
Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 9:15 am
Subject: Re: seeing faces looking at you - to Dave baillielois
Online Now Send IM
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> "David Humphries" wrote:
> There have been about 4-5 times when I've
> been viewing a target
> and all of the sudden I notice someone
> looking straight at me.
Dave, this happens to me a LOT. Not always women though. Many times
just EYES, but they are looking DIRECTLY at me.
A few times they have been actual people that just happened to be in
the vicinity but weren't part of the intended target. Once, my beacon
was trying an experiment of looking into a mirror just at the start of
the session. A few times there was no explanation for them there at
all.
But when I get the "eyes" by themselves, I am beginning to think
(although I'm still open to other ideas) that, for me, this is maybe
an extra form of sensory equipment. That's not a good way to describe
it, but I'm not sure how else to do so. Often the "eyes" are upside
down. But then I also get my information in an upside down form a lot
of the time. That doesn't seem to mean anything - it maybe is just a
physical function of the brain? I can be bang-on in receiving the
info, but it appears upside down... this happens sometimes when I see
the "eyes".
I know you've talked about eyes here before but I thought I'd throw in
my 2 cents.
Lois
----------------------------
Moderator's note: I find it so fascinating that I interpret such experiences as
being 'aspects of myself' and others interpret them as being 'people in the
vicinity' or 'other remote viewers' or whatever. This really kind of goes to
the core of how our own mental models set up how we interpret things. PJ
Reply | Forward
#1833
From: "PJ Gaenir "
Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: some future session bleed-throughs dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Howdy Lian,
> I have gotten clear elements from "future sessions"
I think everyone's been there, done that at some point.
It may be that all data is sort of in an everything-pool and we pull
and sort from it. We may be as likely to miss slightly in time, or
space, or whatever, who knows. However, there ARE certain things
which can seem to aggravate this happening:
1. You're working a target, you're not getting more data, and you
just WillThatDamnDataToComeSoThere! -- sometimes if you demand 'more'
data, your mind might oblige by giving you more data. It might have
nothing to do with your target - whether invented, or 'displaced'
(from another target) - but it'll be data! LOL.
I sometimes create this problem in myself. I get SO pissed when I
get no data at all, that I would actually rather be WRONG than
be 'stuck'. So, sometimes I have a really good session, that has
utterly NOTHING to do with the target! (grrrr....) I do not look
for other things it might match later, and would never consider that
valid. I just missed it, is all.
2. You may not properly "separate" your targets in your "intent".
You may be working from a pool that your mind has nicely wrapped
into "one" identity, which seems to aggravate 'bleedthrough' between
targets. It is really important to cleanly set your intent.
3. You may be VALIDATING yourself for getting data that has nothing
to do with the target, IF it has to do with some OTHER target. (Or
your daily life, or someone else's target, or matches someone else's
wrong data on the same target, or.... there's lots of variants on
this.)
This is really the most common -- and the most dangerous. The
psychology will try a variety of ways of worming out of facing and
changing as a result of RV. That can manifest a few different ways,
but one way is, you will conveniently only be psychic about things
that are not your actual target. Don't let it get away with it. :-)
> The first time (Oct 29) I got the
> normal target data (a
> group of tents in a field) then
> "fireworks" - which were not there,
> but were a clear feature of the Nov
> 1st session (two targets into the
> future).
Bear in mind that although this might be a form of displacement, it's
just as possible that for your mind, fireworks symbolizes something
else. As the 'default' assumption, go through your sessions and see
if you can track each piece of data and WHY you got it. Was it a
grafting of a concept, was it an allegory, was it representational or
symbolic, etc.
> there was fantastic correlation with the
> target (practically a direct hit, all the
> way to the conclusion) but
> it had nothing to do with that night's
> session (a complete disaster
> because of protocol breakdown): it was the
> target designated two days
> later!! (note: there were no sessions in between).
Your words above said:
"...correlation with the target ... it was the target designated two
days later!!"
I suspect a little of this is because you're self-validating all this
and in your head, you already consider that you "described the
target" on that session -- it was just a different target. In
reality, if you're strict with your mind, it is sometimes helpful in
training.
Consider everything as stand-alone as possible, every target as
unique and separated from every other target in the universe as
possible. You failed to describe the target on that day. It may have
happened that a target which incredibly paralleled your session came
up a couple days later (your next session). But training your mind
is a little like training your muscles or a dog (LOL) -- don't give
it any points for being wrong.
> As if that's not confusing enough, I
> routinely end up viewing the
> reverse of the page I task for myself
> in National Geographic! This is
> not a matter of "picking the best fit" -
> the data is clearly stemming
> from that.
This is fairly important: you have got to get feedback protocol down
right. There is one target, and there is only the feedback you set
for yourself. When you show yourself anything else at the same time
you get feedback on your session, you are likely to include that in
your session. It can be the reverse of a magazine target, it can be
something that happens during or shortly after feedback, whatever.
You need to clear the pathway of feedback from anything that is not
feedback. Glue those pages onto a blank sheet of paper so you only
see the target side. Scan them and print them. Whatever.
> I tend to doorknob quite a lot and usually miss the
> background altogether.
Do what works for you, and do it as best you can; usually with
practice, various limits that people have to begin with, start
mellowing out; they'll start getting more data, or more context, or
more of certain kinds of data they didn't get to begin with.
Glad to hear you're practicing!!!
Regards,
PJ
Reply | Forward
#1834
From: "liansidorov71 "
Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:56 pm
Subject: displacement/ puzzled by feedback issue liansidorov71
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi PJ,
thanks for all the useful tips, some of this stuff is way too subtle
for me and it will take many more years to appreciate (I'm only on
session 26, still peeking over the edge of my crib ;-)
> "...correlation with the target ... it was
> the target designated two
> days later!!"
>
> I suspect a little of this is because you're
> self-validating all this
> and in your head, you already consider that you "described the
> target" on that session -- it was just a different target. In
> reality, if you're strict with your mind, it is
> sometimes helpful in
> training.
* After I posted yesterday I went over some old messages and realized
how common this phenomenon is - even learned its name! However, the
reason I was so stunned by the second episode of displacement was
that the damned picture was practically what I had in my mind two
days earlier - a squid at the bottom of the ocean, on a dark
background, with several "uniformed" people focusing intently on it.
I usually suck at getting anything beyond a few basic visual elements
and their relationships - but this time I sensed "tentacles, sticky,
viscous, fear, aggitation, green-gray object on dark background, many
brains, several individuals focused on a mission" - it wasn't an
instant picture, which I knew would have been AOL, but the unfolding
of the data was so clean that the conclusion about the octopus seemed
natural (with only one "fronds? palm tree?" hesitation at the very
beginning)
I seem to remember that you said something similar in the past - that
sometimes displacements are better than the normal sessions. Let'say
that this is all a matter of my brain wanting to "get on my good
side" and picking a nice clear picture from the future. My question
is - in fact this appllies to RV in general - WHAT HAPPENS IN ALL
THOSE SESSIONS WHERE THERE IS NO FEEDBACK GIVEN TO THE VIEWER? I
think Joe had mentioned that sometimes they did application for which
they were not provided with a feedback - which pissed them off ;-)
But of course someone does evaluate all this and could assess the
quality of such sessions. And yes, I know that the results tend to be
better when there is feedback - but! Since this is not absolutely
essential for the mechanism to function, it means that the mechanism
is not strictly based on some "reflected wave" from the future. That
helps, but it's not all. So what is it?
Matti Pitkanen and I have been working on some ideas and I'm hoping
that we'll be able to crystallize them a little better before we put
out the next issue of the JNLRMI. But I wanted to understand more
about the "consensus view" in the RV community on matters like
precognition and feedback, so I might have a few more questions for
the group before the end of the month. I hope that's ok.
By the way, since the next couple of issues will be on RV we would be
happy to invite any positions from the group - either in letter or
article format. I've seen some brilliant minds around here ;-) and
we're always itching for a good argument...
Thanks again!
Lian
---------------------------
Moderator's note: I live to argue. lol. But seriously, what kind of topical
articles do you have in mind? Only a few people on this list are PhDs, if that
is required. -- PJ
|