PsiPog.net
View topic - Remote Viewing, What It Is and What It Isn't
PsiPog.net Forum Index » Clairvoyance » Remote Viewing, What It Is and What It Isn't
| Remote Viewing, What It Is and What It Isn't | |||||||||
| Author | Message | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remote Viewing, What It Is and What It Isn't on Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:06 pm | |||||||||
Elliptic
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 |
Feeling the need to set my house in order (my house being the remote viewing sections of Pog which I effectively birthed some years ago, and not Pog itself, that being Sean's house), I have written this article for Pog, and I have decided to showcase it here, where it will be most poignantly received.
Remote Viewing: What It Is, and What It Isn't A cursory overview of the forums and chats belonging to the PsiPog community in the spring and summer months of 2006 reveals a clear and prominent problem in the community's terminology - that is, the community has utterly misappropriated the term "remote viewing," warping it into something that it is not. Because of the very nature of the term itself, it is proper to correct this terminology error. Those of you who are standing by a descriptivist stance on the development of language need not take up arms against me, here, because remote viewing is not a term that was created to define a preexisting phenomenon. Instead, remote viewing as a term was constructed at the same time as it's practice, and as such, the misappropriation of the term cannot be regarded as a meer alteration of our language in its natural course, but as much of a grievous error as it would be to begin calling the European Union "United States," on the grounds that they are states which are united. In order to address this error, it has become increasingly necessary to define what remote viewing is and isn't, and perhaps to provide alternate descriptors for those things that it isn't, in order to provide a solution to this problem. Perhaps it is best to begin by saying what remote viewing is not. Remote viewing is not the application of seeing things that are far away by traditional psychic means. Remote viewing is not looking at your best friend from a distance. Remote viewing is not a way to access the astral planes, neither is it a way to project your consciousness to another location, nor is it a method of seeing things, in a purist sense, at a distance. Remote viewing is not a reliable method of finding your own tennis shoes which you've misplaced. It is not a reliable way of finding much of anything, especially not in early development. Remote viewing is not "closing your eyes" and seeing whatever you see. Now that we have covered that, I will begin to describe what remote viewing is. Remote viewing is protocol driven. This means that remote viewing uses a rigidly structured and unwaveringly utilized system. One cannot remote view a target by simply willing to look at it. One cannot set their own targets. This is because these violate protocol. So why is this protocol so important? Protocol is what makes remote viewing what it is. The term "remote viewing" was coined in the early 1970s by researchers under contract by the US government. The term was coined specifically to differentiate the practice from all other existing psychic practices. The term was developed so that remote viewing would not be subject to the charlatanry, inaccuracy, mysticism, and generally unscientific methods of gathering information at a distance. Indeed, remote viewing was initially defined by what it is not. It is not clairvoyance. It is not telepathy. It is not astral projection. Researchers intended to demonstrate this fact - they were demonstrating something new. As a result, the term remote viewing was coined not to describe what was happening (indeed, it is a rather poor descriptor, as actual visual acquisition of a target is somewhat uncommon, at least in early stages), but to differentiate it from the things it is not. The difference is the protocol - the system. Remote viewing, in all of its incarnations, be it the military method of Coordinate Remote Viewing, the relatively new commercial Technical Remote Viewing, or the controversial Associative Remote Viewing, relies on several aspects. These aspects are termed protocol, which can be broken down into several distinct and important things. For the sake of brevity, I shall only address the very basic components of protocol in this article. Those interested in learning genuine remote viewing will learn more protocol as a necessary and critical part of their training. The first, and perhaps most important, aspect of protocol, is the utilization of a blind. This is also the biggest problem demonstrated in this community. For those of you unfamiliar with the scientific method, specifically as used in psychology and related "soft" sciences, a blind is deliberately withholding the information from the viewer. In fact, the majority of early remote viewing sessions in the research stages utilized a double-blind - neither the researcher nor the viewer knew what the target was. Some might say "then how does the viewer know what they are trying to see?" The answer is quite simple: they don't. If they did, there's no evidence that they're attaining information psychically whatsoever. It is not at all impressive should one say "view this cola bottle," and the viewer return "I see a bottle, it has a red label, and it has fluid in it!" This is not remote viewing. This is not psychic at all. This is ratiocination. Which brings us to the second critical component of protocol - something we can consider part of the first - the coordinates. Remote viewing targets are universally assigned using a coordinate system. This coordinate system is often composed of 8 numerics arranged in groups of four, however there are other configurations. The configurations are irrelevant. A common question is "how do I know the coordinates of a target?" Again, the answer is, "you don't." Coordinates are randomly assigned. You pull them out of your ass. They mean nothing. "How, then, does a remote viewer acquire a target based on coordinates that are not related to the target?" Well, we don't know - though technically it's incorrect to say they are "unrelated." They are related because they have been made related. While the numbers "8137-1915" have absolutely nothing to do with the toilet bowl brush before me, they become related by the assignation of those numbers to them. The assignment of random coordinates is intrinsically tied to the concept of maintaining a blind because if the coordinates actually related to the target in some way, it would be possible for an astute remote viewer to deduce information about the target from the coordinates, rather than by some psychic means. The use of actual geographic coordinates, for example, may allow an intelligent viewer to know the temperature, climate, and potentially country and location, of a target. This is unacceptable - if the viewer is able to find information about the target without actually viewing, then it must be assumed that they are not doing anything psychic. They're just being bright about it, no matter how accurate they are. The next major point missed over by the PsiPog community is session structure. Contrary to the popular conception, remote viewing data is not pulled from the ether and spewed unfiltered onto a frontloaded session's idiot forum post. One does not respond to an assigned RV target by "closing their eyes and waiting for information." Sessions require structure, as structure allows for the information to be recorded in a way which discourages the viewer from altering the information. Information is logged in an orderly fashion on a piece of paper (yes, it is imperative that one actually write and record a session, for reasons readily apparent to anyone familiar with remote viewing systems). Often, buzzwords and shorthand are used, for example, one might write "AOL" above a peice of information that they believe is resultant from an analysis of the content received down the signal line. (Ironically, "AOL" has been demonized as a horrible thing to avoid - in some cases, it is, though ultimately the proper recording of analytical overlay can be very useful in retrieving information about the target site.) As Paul Smith records in The CRV Manual, one early remote viewer was reported to have said "Content be damned! Structure!" This is a critical point - without proper structure in a session, none of the information obtained is worth half a damn - while it may be accurate, it is not being remote viewed. The actual structure and protocol is discussed by various communities and for-profit organizations which train and develop these protocols. I am presently working on a new protocol, which I will detail in a future book. This being the case, I will not discuss structure in detail here. For a good reference, available free and online, see the [url="http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/answers/crvmanual/index.html"]CRV manual[/url] located at the firedocs website. Alternatively, later in the summer of 2006, I encourage you to buy my book. Given all this, and now seeing the obvious fact that individuals in the PsiPog community are not remote viewing at all, but rather are doing something else (that is, when they are obtaining accurate information at all - this being entirely suspect due to the absence of a blind), it is necessary to find the proper terms to describe what is going on. In most cases, the term "clairvoyance" is most accurate. Members claim to be seeing, visually, targets at great distances. As such, they are performing the classical definition of clairvoyance - sight without the use of the physical senses. In some cases, information is being obtained in a non-visual format, and yet protocol is not being used, and so it is clearly not remote viewing that is being done. For this, the relatively new term "clairsentience" might be applied, being the "knowledge of information not obtainable by normal means." Another possibility is the term "anomalous cognition," being the acquisition of information by anomalous means - this definition seems to be primarily used to define telepathy, however, in some of the scientific circles which investigate these things. The term that is ultimately decided upon is irrelevant, however. What is critical is that it be understood that whatever is being done in the forums on PsiPog is not remote viewing. I will make an effort in the next few months to "set my house in order," and to bring proper remote viewing protocol and procedure to PsiPog - and I call on my fellow remote viewers in the community to do so as well - but the misuse and misattribution of the term "remote viewing" must not continue. After all, the term remote viewing was ultimately used to define itself as exactly not what is being done in PsiPog today, and to use a term as it's antonym is a heinous crime indeed. |
||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:10 pm | |||||||||
Elliptic
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 |
By the way, I do not apologize that I use English and have written this in complete paragraph format. If you find this too much, or too complicated, then you can safely assume that Remote Viewing is not something you want to invest time in learning - the tedium of protocol alone will turn you off of it, if you're even intelligent enough to decypher it in the first place.
By way of "including a summary," as some people think is necessary, because they are either incapable of or unwilling to read large amounts of information, the summary is such: most of what is done here is not remote viewing. Stop calling it such. |
||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:18 pm | |||||||||
PsiGuy60
Joined: 05 Jun 2006 |
Wow, its a miracle i understand those words... | ||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:33 pm | |||||||||
Joshy
Joined: 09 May 2006 |
Woah.. Thanks for that haha
Someones pissed off, But it's a good..article...thing... |
||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:49 pm | |||||||||
Evan
Joined: 30 May 2006 |
No one's pissed off. He simply knows how most of you think, and doesn't want any of you to take his information the wrong way.
By the way, nice article. |
||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:51 pm | |||||||||
Joshy
Joined: 09 May 2006 |
Sounds it
Edit: "Most of you"? Why'd I get put in that group? |
||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:56 pm | |||||||||
Evan
Joined: 30 May 2006 |
Don't worry with it. No one's out to get anybody, and I didn't mean any harm. Let's just enjoy this extremely awesome article. |
||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:07 pm | |||||||||
Elliptic
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 |
I don't recall using your name directly at all. Perhaps a better question would be why you put yourself in that group? And an even better question yet is what you're going to do to get out of it. |
||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:58 pm | |||||||||
Joshy
Joined: 09 May 2006 |
I wasn't talking to you... |
||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:03 pm | |||||||||
Elliptic
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 |
Ok then, well enough. I don't think Evan used your name in specific referring to that group either. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I'm running on very little sleep right now, not that it's an excuse. |
||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
| Posted on Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:26 pm | |||||||||
JoeT
Joined: 27 Nov 2005 |
Hello everyone,
I would like everyone to understand why this article was written. This articles was written to benefit everyone in knowing what remote viewing really is. The majority of our members didn't have a clue up until this article was posted. Please try to understand what Elliptic is stating in his article. It will help you have an understanding on what remote viewing really is and what remote viewing is not. Excellent article Elliptic. Thank you for writing it. Take care. - JoeT |
||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
| Posted on Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:31 pm | |||||||||
Joshy
Joined: 09 May 2006 |
Meh..*Sighs*
Sorry for being a fag, whenever I posted the posts before this one. I'm fine now. The article is good, Cleared up alot. |
||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
| Posted on Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:17 am | |||||||||
MetaAlchemy
Joined: 01 May 2006 |
All forms of [non-RV] ESP should not be used or spoken of at this area of the forum?
Only Remote Viewing should be mechanically practiced in the orthadox fashion? When most people see the words "Remote Viewing" -- they think of being able to gain information about something else from far away. Also, due to the size of Elliptic's first post, more then a few people are not willing to read the big-mechanical bla-bla about orthadox RVing.
Screw that. You're fine. You weren't "being a fag." |
||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
| Posted on Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:12 am | |||||||||
JoeT
Joined: 27 Nov 2005 |
Hello MetaAlchemy,
Not when you're discussing remote viewing. Having members start topics such as "Involuntarily remote viewing" or "A Challenge for advanced RVers (NO COORDS)" is quite frankly disregarding the purpose of remote viewing. I believe peebrain is planning on changing the name to this thread to Clairvoyance for a broader range of topics to discuss. Until then, we will continue to correct other members mistakes to benefit your understanding on this subject. Remote viewing is an followed protocol to gain access based on any target regardless of space, time or shielding. If the members believe that they are receiving information involuntarily, then they are not remote viewing.
Yes, absolutely. Remote viewing is following a set protocol to gain information on your target. If you do not follow any of the remote viewing protocols (CRV, TRV, ERV, etc) then you are not remote viewing. You remote view by staying in structure and following your protocol. I recommend you do some research on remote viewing before you attempt to argue what we're trying to say.
That's exactly what we're trying to help you understand. You can certainly gain information based on any target regardless of space, shielding or time. However, remote viewing is still accomplished by staying in structure and following your protocol. You guys have a complete misunderstanding on how remote viewing is accomplished and learned, please don't argue, we're trying to help you.
If you're not willing to read what we have to offer then why are you here? PsiPog is based on guiding members by allowing them to have free access to articles, media, forums, discussion and chat rooms. If you're not willing to read the article on this page due to the fact that's well written and over a page long, then you have no right to argue. You're being quite lazy and you're setting a bad example for our members. Take care. - JoeT |
||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
| Posted on Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:01 am | |||||||||
MetaAlchemy
Joined: 01 May 2006 |
Okay. Under the forum catagory name: "Remote Viewing" There is a comment that says: "Discussion on viewing objects and events at a distance, along with some target practice." ^ We see, this sort of comment [sounds to me like it] depicts a generalization. "Viewing objects and events at a distance".
Depends on what you call "argue". I am not trying to "argue", but I think I should just leave y'u alone now & go do some reading. =) edit: Most "RVers" that I've met like to cut directly to stage-five, conscious, astral projection. |
||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||
PsiPog.net Forum Index » Clairvoyance » Remote Viewing, What It Is and What It Isn't
All Content, Images, Video, Text, and Software is © Copyright 2000-2006 PsiPog.net and their respective authors. All Rights Reserved.
You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.