Hello. Posting this new topic in response to Vicky's experiences with Bruce and her own explorations beyond a structured approach:

Vicky wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 7:33pm:


So this thread is, in part a reply to Vicky, who asks:

Vicky wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 7:33pm:


and, in greater part, a thread for YOU to post your own experiences and questions about approaches to extra-physical communication.

Vicky wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 7:33pm:


That's a qualified "yes" from me, Vicky.

I'm qualifying it because it's not necessary for me to get a "hit" on someone's resonant signal through physicality. That's a long way of saying there is no need for me to be in physical proximity.

My own experience in physicality is I am immediately present to everything about that "other" person. There are likely no end of philosophical alleys and other dead ends to be discussed about they why, wherefor and how that interest me not at all. In my experience there are no secrets. We are field beings being a field. And my own refinement of this is: we are multidimensional field beings being multidimensional fields.

We can certainly hide known infos from our conscious awareness. We really do know on some level. It's a matter of discernment.

Suppose I could call it a "niggle" that is triggered that may swing my desire to be aware of something. When I pass someone on the street - just a random anybody - and pick up on all sorts of "low vibrational" energy, I may experience a corresponding reaction of "I would really rather not know." I believe the word for this experience is "revulsion" LOL

So much for the "theory". On to actual, personal example. None of the following is to be understood as something you should experience, how you  experience it, or that something is wrong if you don't experience it. We are all different and we all find our own best methods.

My friend with whom I am honored to share so much work and I may hold an exchange that goes like this:

She: What do you pick up when I say the name [Joe Blow]
Me: I [see/feel/notice] [foo / bar / baz]

Now it may be there are 10,000 people named Joe Blow and I cannot tell you (general you) just how I hone in on the right Joe Blow. Actually that question does not interest me at all. I always do. When I nail a signal, I nail a signal.

***

If nothing is really private because we are all field beings being a field, what if I do wish to engage in something that is strictly private? This is actually a topic of concern my friend and I discussed only Wednesday.

"There's someone observing you," she says. "We can't continue this work today until you close that."

And I look and by golly she is right. We are engaged in work that some wish to monitor / record for their own reasons. We are definitely not good with that because their reasons include shutting us down / diverting us from our work / etc.

The countermeasures I / we employ are enabled outside the interspheres. This is a technical answer, and it is a correct answer.

Let me put it this way:

IRL (In Real Life) my Real Life Work is of a highly technical nature. (That line of employment is now in the past tense for me.) The probability that you (general you) are affected by my IRL work is 100 percent. It is not something you hold in any conscious awareness and I made sure of that. None of it bears my name. It bears my energetic signature but it is at such a low level it would escape the notice of all but very few who engage in the same work.

My present work is exactly the same but different. My work is not intended to be seen. It's not done for accolade. It's what is mine to do. QED.

So yes it is possible to do work that is not visible to the conscious awareness. I'd even go so far to say it is sometimes desirable to do so.

Should the actual need for you arise, the solution will become apparent.

Hi Morrighan,

Sorry it's been several days since I've chimed in but I'm here now finally. 

I had such a HUGE success with one of your photo experiments, that's what I'm calling them, experiments, since I never know what's going to happen.  I believe it was #7 that was my huge success.  I'm not wanting to brag, LOL, and not wanting to post my results because it might spoil it for anyone else who comes along to try these at some point.  I'm also pleased it gave me a lot of research to work with for my personal psychic development.

But...I've been doing each of the photos you post and the last few haven't been hits at all.  And yes I know that it's possible that my "info" I get is real but just not stuff I can verify, however my intention is to pick up what can be verified.  Like I said, with #7 it was just incredible.  So I know "it" works, whatever it is. 

I'm like you, I don't rely on anything hokey or mystical conditions, I don't have any rituals or whatever.  Actually what works best is what you'd call beginner's luck.  I actually pick up more information psychically when I'm not even trying nor intending to!  And I think that's an important thing to note.  There's really something to that.  Because it's when I try that I get blocked and hung up. 

What I think is going on when "not trying" works better is more akin to why stage fright happens.  You try too hard to be prepared and you have expectations!  But if you don't have all that in your way and you're just being spontaneous, you do much better.  So now my new approach, instead of preparing and getting myself psyched up, is just going to be very spontaneous and literally the opposite of being prepared.  I'm not even going to get out my sketch book and pencil because even that is a form of preparation. 

And the other thing I'm going to change is how my intention is worded and what I mean by it.  I can't just rely on spontaneous good luck.  I want to actually get at the core of what is making it work when it does work.  And I think it all has to do with intention.  Not necessarily what we logically intend, but what it feels like before we're even logically thinking about it.  I'm talking about the state of being of what intention feels like.  Yes, just like what Bruce is teaching with the Silly Little Finger Bending Exercise.  In my own round-about way that is what it really comes down to for me, that feeling of intention.  No amount of logic, thought, and prep work is going to make much difference if you don't have the ability to spark and feel the intention.  Intention is like magic.  So, I personally need to spend more time focusing on noticing the feeling of intention. 

And I'm going to do that as much as possible throughout my day.  It's not enough to just try to do it for your photo experiments.  I need to be in the mindset of noticing the feeling of intention in anything and everything that I do.  I'm gonna play with that.  Like, pay attention to what I'm noticing and feeling as I intend and actually do something vs paying attention to what I'm noticing and feeling as I think about doing something but not actually doing it. 

I like to make experiments out of any normal thing.  So here's an example.  For a few days I've been wanting to paint my fingernails, but I just haven't gotten around to it.  I have been intending to do it but just haven't felt like doing it.  Every now and then I've looked at my nails thinking, "Yeah, I really need to paint my nails."  But I get busy doing something and it's just inconvenient because you know, when you paint your nails then you have to sit still long enough for them to dry and I have a hard time doing that, ha ha.  I just haven't really had the desire. 

But today I finally just sat down and did my nails.  But what I noticed was that it wasn't because I forced myself or because I planned it.  It was because the thought came again "I really need to paint my nails" and this time what came with it too was an actual desire to do it.  Finally. 

Does anybody else ever pay attention to how our desire to do something affects our intention?  I mean, you'd think desire and intention go hand in hand but they don't always work together.  I have lots of intentions that I actually carry out without having the desire to do it.  The same is true for having a desire to do something with no real intention for it.  I'm trying to think of an example....Ok, for instance earlier today I was desiring playing chess with my son.  The desire just kept popping up in me, but I have no intention of doing it and carrying it out today, mostly because I have other things I really need to get done.  And my son has stuff to do too.  I bet if I asked him, though, he'd say yes.  But again, I've noticed that just because I have a desire it doesn't mean I am actually intending.  That's probably because the other things I need to get done hold more of a desire, a stronger desire. 

I think what does tend to happen with desires that don't get carried out, is that if they are strong or if they persist, what it does is it creates intention.  It's like it'll become more and more desirable until the feeling of intention is there and makes you actually do something about it.

A brief follow-up to my follow-up to Vicky's follow-up.

Stated every so slightly upthread:
In your direct link with creation nothing is real unless you say so.

Your response is clearly heard in my field, and in reply the exact same infos as in my previous post, re-languaged for your comfort.

Within the context of Bruce's travelogue of [some of] the "afterlife territories" we read of hollow heavens &c. And Bruce reports that when the individual is no longer resonant with the energetic that sustains the world [he/she] inhabits, out they go like green corn through the new maid.

When someone is in a [thief] "hell", that space releases its hold when [he/she] no longer holds the "thief" energetic, e.g. belief(s). If memory serves (been a long time since I read Bruce's books, but read them all with great interest), individuals who traverse and exit the belief system territories are, may we say: their services are in demand. No work shortage for them, hey? (Except it's another belief system - let's just skip that for now.)

Bruce reports his experiences within the language of the coalition of the personality matrix that is a "Bruce". And he languages the experiences within the extent of the experience of being a Bruce Moen. Just as I language what I see within the experience of being Morrighan.

We're saying the same thing, and none of this is news to you. (Except to your mind, clever that it is.)

My reply immediately preceding this annex is: you as a creator being create your personal reality. (Yes I hear the screams as you read this. Tough grid.)

When you (general you, or personal you, up to you) say: I am only able to nail a target once in a while, you inform creation that this is what you want. Be very careful when you say: I AM.

This is not about looking in the mirror like Jack Handy and telling yourself: "gosh darn it, I'm good enough." It comes from the core of your being. You can't get out of "thief hell" by saying: "whoops no more stealing for me," because there's a big difference between saying something and Being That. Still, words count, and we create as we language. We tell stories about ourselves as if we're really real LOL

You are not your story. You are only as much the story you tell yourself you are as you tell yourself you are.

Thank you for your indulgence.

Morrighan

As Vicky notes, anyone, embodied or otherwise, is accessible to a skilled seer. It's not magic. And it's not necessary to close your eyes to see.

I notice that works best for me is when I'm able to have a feeling sense of perception, meaning that I'd have a sensation of an experience and then describe what it feels like to me.  For instance, if I said, "I feel like I'm sitting behind the wheel of a car that's driving down a long, straight road."  When I perceive that way I can just describe literally what I'm sensing without trying to "be right". 

I always try to tune into picking up information by feeling the sensation of the experience.  I do sometimes get visual impressions or have words come to me, but the feeling sensation seems to be the strongest means of perception for me. 

What I'm trying to work on is figuring out a format or a way to tap into that particular sense.  Sometimes I just feel like I'm not getting anything at all, in which case I just set it aside and plan to go back to it another time.

I have a project I've set up to help me hone in on the process.  Every now and then I print random photos from the Internet, then take that stack (turned upside down so I can't see the pictures) and place each one into a separate mailer envelop.  I have over a hundred that I've collected.  They're easy to shuffle and mix up.  When I randomly choose one there's no way of knowing which photo it is even though I'm the one who printed them out and put in the envelopes, although on one of these large batches I actually had my daughter sit and stuff the envelopes for me.  So every now and then I print more to add to the stack of envelopes.

Then when I sit down to try to remote view one, I have a sketch pad and pencil ready to draw or write any impressions.  Then I open it to check for any hits.  Then I keep that photo in the sketch book so that my results are always there to look back on.  I either get zero hits at all, stretch hits, a mixture of some hits and no hits, or I get direct hits. 

The goal isn't to try to see the photo as a whole but to pick up on "information".  An examples of really good hits are one was a photo of a house with several windows, and the windows had one piece of wood going horizontal and one going vertical across the middle as a decorative look.  In my notes I had "windows" and "crosses inside".  That's all I picked up on but it was considered a direct hit because it can be taken literally.  I didn't have a sense or feeling of a house or anything else, only the "windows with crosses inside".  My meaning of "cross" wasn't a religious one, only that something crossed.  I think it would also be fair to consider it a hit had there been a religious kind of cross, or if it had been an "x" type of cross.  All of these are valid meanings for "cross", although I know that how my interpretation works is that if it was an X I probably would have written X's and not called them "crosses". 

But you can see my point that how we perceive is filtered by our way of understanding and interpreting things. 

One of my best remote viewing practices was when in my mind's eye I saw a squiggly line dividing two halves.  I knew that both sides were connected but were two separate things.  On the right side were a lot of tall things, long, pointy, skinny things sticking straight up into the air.  To me they looked like lines.  When I viewed the real photo, it was of a shoreline, with the ocean on the left side and the beach on the right.  On the beach were several small sailboats…their masts were what I saw.  There were no sails on them, which is why I saw the “lines”.  Even though everything about this was a direct hit, I still had no idea what it was I was viewing.  I didn't know about the water, the shore, the boats, none of that.  I was literally just perceiving these elements as pieces of information, not as a whole. 

Sometimes I do think I get a case of beginner's luck, but from all my practices I try to hone in on the process and details of what I notice about how I perceive.  Then of course try to replicate it, which takes just lots and lots of practice.

Morrighan wrote on Oct 27^th, 2017 at 8:52pm:


Thanks, and I agree and am starting to do that more and more so that I don't rely on needing my eyes closed. 

If you're into brainwave entrainment, try listening to a Theta metronome CD and keep your eyes open.  It's pretty wild!

On getting "hits".

There exists a somewhat pervasive notion that only objectively verifiable information is valid when, let's call it "taking stock" of a "target". By objectively verifiable I mean a hypothetical situation like this:

We shift our awareness until we are in (depends on the language you care to use - focus number number, brain wave state this or that, level some number, any number of other descriptions). Now we are in the presence of our recently or not so recently departed, and ....

And what?

What is it I require to validate my experience? Do I need a name, a maternal grandmother's first name, place of birth, circumstance of death, the name of their first pet?

Parapsychologists and others have been playing this game for years. Decades. Centuries. And proved .... what?

Just what are you (general and specific you) attempting to verify? Mind is not your BFF here folks, IMO.

In my case - and this is 100 percent likely not to be in your case for we all perceive differently - the pertinent information I pick up is non-verbal.

Bruce talks about this as he learned to communicate with toning. TMI teaches the use of non-verbal cues.

Have you (general you) forgotten your pre-verbal state? Back when it looked to you like your parent appeared incredibly stupid? What do I need to do to get some food around here? and this is what we learn very early on.

Did you ever imagine the recently deceased might have other things to say that go beyond their personality in life?

Did you ever imagine you are able to go beyond your personality NOW?