Greetings,

when trying to learn remote viewing, does one have to overcome a strong built-in capability to see symbols rather than things? Do symbols precede material things for the Interpretor?

How does one know if they're seeing symbols or things? Here at this website we almost always consider what we see to be a symbol. But an effective remote viewer must see material reality. Are they turning off a capability or adding a new one, I wonder?

Bets

Hi Bets,

A woman who taught remote viewing was at Bruce's workshop that I went to.  I remember talking with her briefly.  She felt the protocols set out I assume by Joe McMoneagle were critical.  Other than that I remember her saying that you should avoid using noun words, just descriptive words.  If you use a noun to describe something, everything else can be influenced and contaminated by pinning what you're viewing to nouns.  I assume the same thing applies to symbols.  It was pretty interesting. - Rob

Yes, too quickly sort something in by using nouns should be avoided as good as possible, as well as front loading.
I think McMoneagle is right when he states that it requires quite some effort to become a good remote viewer. Bets, what you asked about how do we know what's a symbol and what's physical reality, the skill to distinguish it can only be gotten from experience, practising, testing. That means, attempting to explore something in the physical by nonphysical senses which then can be checked to what degree the viewer was correct. With time (and luck) one then probably can develop the ability to feel which is which. This is, in public, undiscovered territory BECAUSE it requires effort in my opinion (and of course because of prejudices).

Spooky

a thing is a symbol also of something else. oh wait, I see what you're saying, you think remote viewing is to be viewing the real thing and not a symbol of the real thing.

when I did a PE once it was to me, to be really there. my partner threw a note at me which fell to the floor. but in truth, the note was not something she used on her side of things, in Australia. that was what my mind produced to show she was "messaging" to me. it was a symbol, yet I was really there as I sensed upon my nervous system the jarring tone of something..it was the telephone.
this was like remote viewing to me.
then theres another remote viewing exercise, has nothing to do with a live person. just to try and see an image, revealed to you after the session.
they call this remote viewing, but you are not really there, to be seeing an image by concentrating on a number, the number is also a symbol for the item.

the difference about remote viewing is they instructed me to use my nose, my touch, my sensation of hot or cold, not just to be seeing. also to draw on paper some lines that may come to mind. that was fun!

just to get 2 out of 10 correct is quite a thrill and well worth the work!

hey bets what do you think of this site:

http://greaterreality.com/rv/instruct.htm

I've shared this before.

One time I was meditating. I heard a little dog barking. Thought it was a short nosed dog from down the street. I wondered what he was doing barking in front of my house. Then I saw an image of a long nosed dog that looked quite different than the dog from down the street. I got up and looked out my window, and saw the exact same dog I saw while meditating. No interpreter problems in this case, even though I expected the dog to look differently.  Chances are I was helped with the vision. I wonder if physical distance has anything to do with it.

www.ynhh.org/healthlink/mentalhealth/index.html

This is a link to "Transcranial electromagnetic stimulation" which is one way to quiet an overactive mind - or so it would seem. I tried it using a Radio Shack Bulk Tape Cassette Eraser and everything inside my head quieted down or shut up - normally the way I like to operate between problems or episodes of brain flatulence. One theory of this is that the influence polarizes everything into a collectively neutral state - like electroshock therapy, but without the bite.

If images are confused by to much inner psycho-babble, this might help.

Bets - The images we see everywhere are interpretations. The actual object occurs somewhere in the "outside", and only when active can it be sensed - for example, bouncing light off it that hits our retinas, and the patterns of light change (or we do) - else we can't sense it at all. A relationship that is totally unchanging is not available to be sensed by people nor by machines.  When you ask whether the images are "symbols", or whether they are "things", it turns out that they are nether.

A study of autistic and normal art students quickly points out that the autistics draw a batter representation of the model. Normals can approximate that by inverting the image, and drawing it in its inverted perspective. This works even better if the non-dominant hand is used.

Both methods isolate the art from the conceptualization that we form about the model. Autistics don't generalize, so they draw the model dispassionately. Normals generalize, integrate and correlate and eventually they come up with a mental concept of what they are supposed to do. Then they draw the concept. Not only is there a strong tendency to produce what we expect, but at least in my case, I also draw in the visual astigmatism with which I perceive it.

When we try to bring in any kind of "understanding", we spoil the process (I trust that Juditha will verify this).  So whatever those things are that you are getting as you practice, those are the ones.

dave

Greetings,

This is all very helpful!  Thank you all very much.

Lucy, you and your portfolio of interesting sites ! Good one--I hope alot of people try it!
I tried six of those before my----started messing around with the 'game.' I adapted it: Only 4--5 major edges/ lines were allowed to be drawn, then off to check the photo. I did it this way to keep any extra time from building up that might get used for second guessing or going off on tangents, and to get really immediate feedback. My conscious mind never knew/saw, but what I call my guidance told me when it was ready and then I put the lines down where it said. Split-schizo? :D  In the first 3, the major shapes fit my lines! I wondered if I could do more detail but I didn't.
Then they started falling apart. #4 was reversed and oriented horizontally instead of vertically, but otherwise fit just fine; #5 was completely wrong; #6 had lines for #5 with some added that looked like #6 !! ;D ;D
Good party game!
I'd previously tried real objects and had no correlations.

Dave, that perceptual trick of drawing upside down subjects to avoid generalizations was known back in my day, but not the information about autistic students doing better;  :)  we just thought they were shy. And we didn't know the implications --guess the art teacher couldn't draw   conclusions.  :-?

Thank you!

Bets

yeah it would be a good party game.  I think one of the challenges is, sometimes you get the lines, sometimes you get the ambiance, sometimes you get nothing! but it isn't literal. like the site says "You'll also see things in metaphors. What seems like a tall spire could be the neck of a giraffe. You could feel cold and the scene could have snow in it." I guess you have to practice alot so you know how your own sensing works.

He has some other instructions there:


Quote:

If any colors, shapes, temperatures, textures, movement, or other characteristics come to you, open your eyes and write them down just as they come. If you see an image in your black window, sketch it. Don't try to identify it. Don't assign a name to it. Only sketch and describe shapes (a tall, narrow shape with a rounded object at the top; feels hard; it's warm). Never try to guess at what the shapes are. If you are seeing something you can identify, it is imagination, not remote viewing.

how do those instructions fit in with your experiences?

hey bets poking around that site led me to this one. It hasn't been updated recently. but hey it is interesting that it exists.

http://hrvg.org/

Greetings,

That hrvg seems abit complicated. I'd rather spend my time practicing, which I need.
:-[ My first hits may have been beginner's luck or flukes--tonight it's not happening.

Bets

I have been experimenting with numbers: 3 numbers are randomly
shuffled from a stack of cards marked 0 to 9 and hidden, number
face up, on a high shelf. This high shelf is illuminated by a night
light.

I seem to be doing ok in that I get 2 of the 3 numbers at about 5
times the random expectancy. I don't know if this is significant
yet, because of the tendencies of random events to cluster.
To analyze such events I find it convenient to list events in
columns of the number that relates to the normal expectancy of
occurrence. A roulette wheel number has a normal expectancy of one
occurrence in 38 plays of the wheel. So I list data at 38 lines to a
column, and then count the occurrences in a column.

I have one chance in 12 of getting 2 of my 3 hidden card numbers,
so I record the trials in groups of 12.

Then as a check I use random numbers from a large file I have of
truly random numbers, and write programs to synthesize my trials. I
then run these programs using my random numbers, and print out
sheets that display the normal expectancy. I can then compare my
results to these sheets of what is normal.

One thing that has turned up in this, and on the roulette wheel, is
that random numbers occur in clusters and absences. A uniform rate
of occurrence is against the laws of chance. It is quite ordinary for
an event to occur 3 times in the column where only one occurrence is
expected. 4 times is less usual, and 5 times is quite rare. I hope
next time I work on this to get a graph of this 3 4 5 decline. It
could be useful for something.

Meanwhile, my getting above chance results has continued to where it
seems beyond being a cluster.

One problem is that I have little indication of whether I am right
or not, at the time I sense the number. No hunches that this must
be the number. No rushing to the lottery like Alysia, crying
eureka. I hope that will improve.

Another problem is the mind wants to feed numbers to me any way it
can dig them up. Like it might give me 347. But the mind is full of
things, like 3 + 4 = 7, so it feeds me that, and I don't know
whether to accept it or not. One time the number on the shelf
actually was 347.

The numbers sometimes come to me visually, sometimes just as a
knowing. One time the number appeared visually in a fancier font
than I have used in making the cards. The number 5 appeared more
neatly printed, like a professional printing style. But the cards
are drawn in an ordinary straight hand style with a Sharpy.

I continue in the hope that practice will strengthen my faculties.
This is because I have read that the pineal gland was found to be
larger in meditators. Last night I had a  dream in which numbers
were displayed on a large sheet, and I was trying to read them.

When trying to see numbers, there are at least two different ways to evaluate the results. Either "hit or missed" or to include a "closeness factor". Let's say a number between 1 and 1 Million has been randomly chosen. You guess it's 7463, but the supervisor tells you then "No, it's 7462, therefore MISSED." Now you would be pissed!

I had once tried to guess a number in a partnered exploration/telepathy experiment, and found it worked best when I imagined a line of numbers (0,1,2,3,...end number) and then go with my feeling in which area of the numberline the target number would be. I got no exact hits, but came close to the target number. But we did it not often enough for an evaluation.

Spooky