David's question: "How can you use it if you don't know how it works?"

[RedCairo]

To address the actual point of the OP's thread, rather than the conversation since:

You can utilize what we do know about RV (the psi part), regardless of (a) not knowing everything about how to utilize it, and (b) not knowing everything about how to perform it and (c) not knowing "why" or "how" it works.

It's important to work in an "engineer, not scientist" model as a viewer because the real question is not "how does it work" or "why does it work" but rather "does it work?" Engineers will build stuff just to see, even crazy unlikely things; unlike most scientists, they don't need an armchair theory their psychology feels good about and safe with, in order to actually just DO something and "see what happens". That's an important state of mind and approach to remote viewing, because it IS so unknown on so many levels, and because even what is known thanks to science, it is still a totally new experience for each person diving into it.

As an example, you can take a given problem in the real world that you have some ability to apply possible solutions to. And then, you can look at what at least some viewers can do sometimes, and brainstorm, "How can I task this to ask a specific question, that if I got the answer I would recognize it, and I could find a way to apply that knowledge to good effect?" (Strangely this is not at all as easy as it sounds, especially the latter two points.) Sometimes it takes trial and error. Sometimes it takes finding different viewers. (Not necessarily better, but perhaps with different strengths.) Sometimes it takes tasking differently.

In any case, it is always going to require some intelligent thought and working out how what RV can do--that includes understanding its limitations and its issues--and how that could best be applied to a given situation.

For example let's say you know something is going to happen but have no idea of the date. You could task the viewer on a timeline (forced-choice data) or calendar (abstracted data); they may or may not be accurate or useful. You can task the viewer in a free-response format (which is more literally RV) and hope they tell you when it happens as that's the task, and if they don't, retask them a few times till they do, and if they don't, either task it differently, task a different viewer, or give up. You could task the viewer to describe the concepts and experience related to the "major holiday which happens nearest the event" and then try to narrow in from that point (assuming you figure out the data means 'christmas' and not 'memorial day'). You could task the viewer to describe the weather and the trees on the day of the event and see if you get a seasonal idea.

This is a rather simplistic example off the top of my head (there are probably better examples), but what I am trying to demonstrate is that even if you want a kind of data that psychic functioning does not very well provide (accurately), you can usually find a way to "task around" it until you get to some kind of data that RV *does* do ok with.

Along the way you might discover that the process--or a certain viewer--provides you by surprise exactly what you need by 'chance'.

Along the way you might have to task things repeatedly, or task pieces of something multiple times to get more info, or task differently, or task a different viewer. Psi is not predictable, not per team, per viewer, per target, or per session.

You might also discover that what the tasker has in mind has the potential to affect the data, that the feedback given the viewer has the potential to affect the data, and that there is a huger need for 'clean protocol' -- and this is mental and affects everyone part of the effort -- than most people realize. So there is plenty for taskers to learn as well.

Anyway. So my point is that no matter how ignorant we may still be about psychic functioning and the 'why and how', one CAN, still, work toward applying it practically. Everything we learn does improve our ability to 'use' it -- certainly! But just because it is fairly new to be 'practically' used, does not mean it's impossible to do so.

RC

 

[RedCairo]

I can't convey how tempting it is to join the endless debate based on IT analogies. If you'd added some good car analogies too I would surely have succumbed. (I need a life.) By the time I was done reading 4 pages of this I thought -- wait... what was the question again?!

Remote viewing, as I understand it, is *entirely* an internal physical skill and utilizes no outside technology.

Psychic functioning is an internal physical skill. Remote viewing is the combination of psychic functioning performed within a science-based protocol. But to skip that detail for the moment and address your point...

Yes. Although technically you can use any psi format (methodology) within a remote viewing protocol, the most common format is basic clairvoyance either externally structured (external method like CRV) or internally structured (internal method either self-developed, or something like Silva), or unstructured (just 'relax and describe'). There is no 'witness' as they call it in dowsing; there is nothing in the middle like a crystal ball, tarot cards, runes, tea leaves, bones, scrying mirrors, etc. Some technology is used by viewers to help get in a nicely altered state, for those into that (such as bineural audio). But as a process it is up to the viewer. Which is why it's so black-box.

RC

 

[Gen]

As another related issue, most people want to examine psi as if they can put it in a test tube; you can doubleblind the situation but that's all you can really do.

Agreed. Thank you for this thoughtful response!

However, I have observed--and some intelligent viewers dispute this I might add, so my opinion is just one--that psychic functioning, particularly in RV since 'hard feedback' has a vastly more impactive effect on belief systems (hence change of fundamental psychological constructs which literally are about 'the nature of reality' and 'identity'), is inherently 'destabilizing'. This doesn't mean that it makes people crazy, it just means that you can't mess with core belief systems without literally causing some turbulence in the psychology. Healthy people "adapt"; it's a matter of 'keeping your balance' and learning adaptive behaviors at times, even though the ground is moving a bit beneath you, so to speak. Some people have genuine psyche issues though--the very sort associated with psychic work throughout time. To the degree of actual psychotic breaks and other stuff you will probably never hear about publicly (a sort of field-wide adaptive dsyfunction... on some psychic level we agree not to talk about this LOL).

'Destabilizing' is a good way to put it. In my own field, among other professional psychics, I have not seen anyone have a psychotic break, but I am sure it happens. Usually people just get weird, in various unhealthy ways.

(Not to mention really obscure stuff can affect you. In one session years ago I got this feeling that "this huge darkness is coating my heart"--a sort of "emotional analogy"--and GRIEVED as if heavily depressed for three days before I shook it off. The target was the Exxon Valdez disaster. Er, yeah. Try telling anybody "I grieved because years ago some ship spilled oil" and they'll definitely think you're nuts. Not to mention some of the really GROSS things that trauma targets can give you for an instant.)

I know exactly what you mean here! I have had very similar experiences in my own psychic work. And this is, to some degree, what I mean when I talk about danger. Obviously this did not do you any lasting harm, but when we ratchet up our sensitivity, it naturally makes us more vulnerable. And then it's hard to get support for this sort of psychic wound because, as you say, people will think you're nuts.

I don't know how bad the "Valdez effect" can get, either. In my own readings, there are certain things I don't like to look at, for this reason.

When I first contacted the dead -- no other way to put it -- it was accidental and, for me, very upsetting. The dead person wasn't threatening or unpleasant or negative, but the boundaries of my reality had changed and I didn't like it.

Life is risk. You can't steal second with one foot on first.

I'm cheering you on.