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 : 933-933 of 4038


From: "PJ Gaenir" Date: Sun Oct 27, 2002 12:16 pm Subject: Thoughts on Symbolic Data dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email This is copied from a PEM I sent a few days ago. I thought someone here might have similar thoughts or experiences along this line so maybe I should post it. --------------------- Last night, after listening to a theta cd for awhile, I went through my sessions. And you know, it was very interesting, but I was suddenly able to understand the 'symbolic' data in them. I must have been in the right state of mind, as suddenly a whole lot of stuff -- and my RV 'process' -- became more clear to me. In some cases I didn't even know data was symbolic until last night, I knew only that it wasn't wrong but was -- well - "unhelpful", lol. But last night, it was like the various meaning(s) within a phrase or something would 'unfold itself' in me as I looked at it, and I would understand how it related to the target, and what it told me. I realized that many of my sessions that have seemed like totally lousy sessions, had I bothered focusing in the proper state of mind on the data I actually got, could have been very good sessions. I realized that most of my worst sessions didn't lack target contact, they just lacked good translating. It's not only that not being in the right state of mind doesn't GET so much data. It also doesn't *process* data as well, as intuitively. I have thought till last night that most all symbolic and abstract data is useless because while it is clear on feedback what you meant, who could possibly unravel it prior to then? I mean seriously most of it is bizarre or as I say, "singularly unhelpful until after feedback". But I realized last night I have never made much attempt within the session, or even after it prior to feedback, to "intuitively consider" the data (sort of RVing the data after RVing the target) and what it might mean to me. (When I have, it has been an analytical process much more harm than help.) As a sort of process-level-AOL I guess, I've just written down what I got and moved on, without stopping to "delve into" what a piece of data that isn't real specific or unique means, as there's this monster "don't-analyze-just-move-forward" thing CRV has that I didn't even realize I still had shades of until last night. I've also noticed a tendency to get a lot of info that simply "exists as a subtle known" instead of coming through as data, particularly 'contextual', and hence doesn't get written down, but I understand it on feedback and wonder why it wasn't written down in the session. Again though some of that goes back to not 'exploring' a given datapoint inside oneself, instead of just writing something "gotten" (like specifically) down and moving on. This would especially be useful to do when data flow seems to stop for a bit, since unraveling existing data could strengthen target contact. But as I was taught 'never to go back in a session' (there is no line previous to the one you are on) that would be impossible. But now I think sitting there for 10 minutes 'waiting for more data', getting pissed off, inventing data, ending the session, etc. instead of going back to what I've got and working to intuitively explore it, is just inane. I used to write interim summaries to put me back in contact, I suddenly remember... god that was years ago. I've found that emphasis on S2 descriptives gleaned from 'waiting for data' or wildly guessing based on ideograms is probably my biggest source of wrong data in sessions - small generic things that either contradict my good data or throw me into thinking along lines that don't match the target (either way, it harms target contact). Whereas, if I "pursue" data by 'being willing to take symbology as data' -- being determined to KNOW -- anything, no matter what, it's usually accurate (though whether I can translate it is another story). I realized last night that I have held a sort of 'suppression factor' on data that is "openly" symbolic, I mean the real obvious allegory/symbol stuff, getting it only once in awhile usually when I am briefly most open. Even my Q&A makes it clear that my mind has been in this mode of thinking "hard facts" is what I am looking for. But I see here and there than when I allow data through like it wants to come through, and if I intuitively and intelligently consider that data which may be symbolic or abstract, that I could end up with those hard facts. Often the symbolism is either so subtle or comes with that 'subtle knowns' stuff, that not until I really focus on it does the rest of the info come out, as if it were 'wrapped inside' something. Here's a few examples I wrote on a 'notes' page in my lab book, of lines in sessions that I 'understood' suddenly last night: "...blurred. 3 ghost images went out, then came together again as one..." [sort of like crossing then uncrossing your eyes] = multiple things that are mostly the same; they have an individual uniqueness, but they are also of a family-singularity. (target: skyscrapers in a city overview gestalt target) "...solid in state yet changing in situation..." = a fairly long-term environment (subtle overlay 'solid state'=manmade) with activity within it over time. (target: skyscrapers in a city overview gestalt target) "...there are trees in a straight line..." = I'd asked 'what other info might be relevant' and this one should have told me, the target environ has been constructed by man (target: skyscrapers in a city overview gestalt target) "...some native, a young boy, whose face was painted to match a background [didn't write: the wall of a building] so he blended in until he moved, then I saw him..." = there is human life in the target but it's invisible, hidden behind manmade walls by the nature or scope of the target. (target: skyscrapers in a city overview gestalt target) "...move 100 yards to right and describe..." "... no data coming..." = there is no change in the current vs. new perspective. (target: skyscrapers in a city overview gestalt target) [responding to 'is there animal or human life here?'] "At one time. Temporal." = clearly the question focus was not the focus of the target and the target had a span of existence longer than people or animals. So, the target was not an event, and the target likely did not 'feature' humans and animals. If it HAD, the target itself would be more "temporally sized to fit" humans and animals, if that makes sense. (target: skyscrapers in a city overview gestalt target) (The above is something worth talking more about -- the "temporal size/shape" of a target is another almost-measurable dimension of it and is set by our intent/focus...) "...social and cultural cohesion..." = the target has (or is) a circumstance which brings people together in a state of bonding. (target: weather map showing hurricane Floyd) "...there was this bugle playing a really fast song I'm familiar with but don't know the name of..." = a formal announcement to the people (target: weather map showing hurricane Floyd) "... a kid I think, jumping up and down like in excitement..." = a strong sense of "anticipation" (target: weather map showing hurricane Floyd) "...fleeting moments in a permanent place." = the target had info I didn't pull out: [t was a manmade environ designed to be fairly permanent - iow, not a crop field, not a shanty-town, not a circus, but something like city buildings or houses or things like that.] [target is an event or related to an event.] [the event was brief.] (target: storm threw big tree on house [killed girl]. feedback is a couple men standing near the tree the next day.) So OK, this seems like little stuff. But I look back on targets I did - like the weather map of the hurricane for example, and I think, "what if I HAD pulled out the symbolic info in that data?" Well, instead of having a session which contained valid info but also some that wasn't (a lot of flat/land comments after Ids), 2.5 pages, I could actually have said something like a summary of, given my data: * formal announcement to the people * sense of anticipation * wind, waves, chaos storm on coastal area * people hoping/praying to be protected from storm [last point from 'song clip' I got, 8th grade chorus, "Hold the wind, oh my Lord, don't you let it blow."] Just those points would have succintly summed up the target. And, had I explored some of the symbolic stuff, the additional working on legit data might have increased my target contact and brought more data, too. So waiting for / demanding "factual data" is actually not useful unless it COMES when you ask for it -- but EXPECTING data to be factual might be accidentally suppressing data that isn't "literal", which is surely harmful to the process. Now I have at times gotten general info and asked for more specifics and gotten it. For example: "...Broad. Flat. Plane." me> come on! that is SO generic! "... sister... sifter ... sistine..." me> (sound attempt?) Target: Swissaire crash search/rescue event (helicopter w/light) "... floot? flood? foot? streaky in the sky. I'm reminded of northern lights, and flames, and strobes..." [that I didn't get "floodlight" is downright dense] Target: Swissaire crash search/rescue event (helicopter w/light) me> describe the function of the target *normally*. "High factor in consciousness of those around. Very noticeable." me> something less esoteric & more utilitarian please! "Observation." Target: Swissaire crash search/rescue event (helicopter w/light) But when I asked for the above I was *getting* data, so in the flow of it, that's fine. But if I'm NOT in the flow, which since I'm seldom in the 'right state of mind' is most of the time!, taking what I get and learning to understand it -- that ITSELF is what could potentially PUT me in the right state of mind -- in better target contact. So the whole issue is about target contact. Er, which is what Joe's said all along I guess. PJ pjrv : Messages : 965-984 of 4038


From: aeonblueau8008... Date: Mon Oct 28, 2002 5:01 am Subject: Re: Thoughts on Symbolic Data terri8008 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > PJ wrote > "...Broad. Flat. Plane." > me> come on! that is SO generic! > "... sister... sifter ... sistine..." > me> (sound attempt?) > Target: Swissaire crash search/rescue event (helicopter w/light) all IMO as usual... Well, that's what I prefer, the boring old "broad flat plane" one word descriptive type sessions in nice little columns. More than that (IMO) goes on to AOL's. I'm big on AI's and EI's tho, good session indicators or gauges IMO. Words, rhyming, image streaming, using the word "like", again leads to possible AOL(and drive) and dread labeling/identifying which is not bad but not good for newbies or even some oldies. Nothing wrong with AOL, just set it aside jot it down over to the right,then and or take it apart (now or later) and describe it, using one word descriptive. Boring but it seems to work, as far as staying on tgt (as opposed to veering off down left brain/mind memory lane and or analogies). Usually you can make it 'fit' the tgt site(symbolic/AOL), may not be the site but it will "fit". I have never found much use for symbolic, but that's just me, but I find it too symbolic, and not really RV, and what i'm going for is accurate spot on descriptive and opposed to my personal impressions, or mind filterings. I'm not at all interested in my personal viewpoint on and of the site, I'm just interested in the site/target raw data. Much else, too much gibberish, and frankly I consider/declare I am out of session. Sometimes too much(or not enough) comes in especially at the beginning, can seem to overwhelm and confuse, take a break and let it settle in or back off from signal. Describe just the immediate environment or environmentals, just skim the surface, then go from there (some-thing then, object, focus, issue should attract you). In ERV session I back off and re-group, I shift off signal or site and resume. I refocus totally on cloud or color breathing for a minute or two, then shift back to signal, seems to clean up the noise or add some stability, maybe substance is a better descriptive. Some tgts don't come in in anyway but (I do this a lot)doorknobbed, or frustrating all over the place blurred impressions, (I have the impression of, bla blah blahh), nothing solid to sink your teeth into, those types require another tasking, some direction to point or put you in, for myself anyway. (one of the problems with newbies working tgt/photo pools, no guidance nor assistance, learning the long hard way IMO) But then one gets into tasking and retasking and monitors (as opposed to self- task- monitor- cueing- etc.). I've actually only seen one (public) pull that off, do it yourself.. a real pro, the whole nine yards and very concise, and that one was CRV trained by Liam. Well, there's two, just saw another one on Skip Atwater's site, his new RV program, but that fella has quite a lot (impressive)under his belt also. RV is hard that used to be a number one rule. IMO find a way that works with you compliments you, works in your favor, don't fight or berate yourself, don't push too hard for what your just not ready for, it all comes in time even when theirs no time.. or whatever. Falling back on tried and true sometimes helps, and is less frustrating than trying to re invent the process and in the process forget or loose the process altogether. Every viewer has her/his own quirks and strong points, every practiced viewer knows what's what and usually where is where, or where it belongs if indeed it does. (IMO symbolic interference and AOL disappear with time and practice, after about a year as your trust and confidence grows and if your staying with one school or method.. "knowns" start to become more common place or replace the AOL)) I may be too disciplined to literal. I think I have pushed myself too far in that direction and it has become ingrained and habitual Sometimes I think I am and miss bits and pieces of a tgt, which is why I decided to cut myself some slack and start drawing or creating abstract images, a picture to go with practice (fooling around) sessions. Then again the more I fool around the worse my sessions get. Then again some weird sessions I worked (paid) all I would get were impressions, vague. All I could do was my best to draw them out, nothing really solid or firm, weird pictures. The folks kept wanting more sessions, said they needed to interpret them, so I kept getting more coords. I never got feedback. I did my polite best and kept prompting, in the end I gave up, they were just not going to supply feedback which was their right, and I don't have a frickin clue as to what I did or for whom, but I assume I w as on tgt, still I'm very very curious tho. I practice ERV, and I have a (Monroe Inst.) Thursday night meditation group that I belong to, the two (practices) are totally different for me, which means even tho ERV is altered state RV, I can't hemi sync nor "meditate" on a target. But.. then again on Atwater's site I noticed that and f15 tape was used prior to the ERV sessions, f15 (focus15) might work, a very clean no time no place level of consciousness. Not shure if I have and 15 tape around, but that might be an interesting experiment. (actually when I was taught ERV, I was told to drop and considerations or beliefs, set them aside, don't bring them into session with you, so I did, didn't have many anyway, never encountered or had any guides or guidance and am not particularly religious) PJ, I've never thought to check to see what my left knee or any part of the bod thought about the tgt site, could be a CRV thing. In ERV any attention to my body in session jerks me out of session, in ERV session I for themost part am not aware of me at all. When/if I do seemingly seem to get body sensations it's usually cuz i'm in someone else's. In the beginning about the first year I had very annoying itchies, full body- then mostly face, like a spider web overlay, then it went down to my nose and upper lip, the itching. Yeah when my nose itched it usually indicated I was on site. Then I learned to drop deeper into altered state, to bypass the/any body sensations or objections. I don't get them at all anymore. That first year I used to get a yellow ochre tinged level also quite a lot, that's ceased also. So there's my ramble, my opinions based on experience and what I have observed, my contributions for what there worth, RV is just hard. all the best ~~Terri Reply | Forward


From: Bill Pendragon Date: Tue Oct 29, 2002 4:53 pm Subject: Re: Thoughts on Symbolic Data docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Terri, When you talk of asking the monitor. Are you talking about a monitor in the room with you? Best Regards, bill

// end archive

Top of Page