| Can a CRVer Identify Things? Question: I read the book recently by Jim Schnabel (Remote Viewers), as well as the abstracts that you suggested. Remote Viewing is not what I thought it was. It seems to be helpful as a descriptive tool, but doesn't really help you to identify what a target is. You even have instructions on the practice targets that we should "describe, not identify". Do I understand it right? Can a viewer ever identify what a target is? Answer: (NOTE: This answer has been provided by Palyne (PJ) Gaenir, webmaster of the Firedocs web site.) Well... remote viewing is about acquiring data. Part of the RV process requires that one train themselves out of assumptions about "what" something is -- referred to as "analysis" in CRV but in its most basic form what we're really talking about is "recognition." So, much RV data is not going to include "what" the target is specifically, but instead, a great deal of detail about it. BUT. That being said, this does not mean that a Viewer is not, often, going to recognize what something is in general or even in specific. Especially if the target is some high-consciousness target, something lots of people see or think about. (It is generally easier to RV the great pyramid than someone's uncle George's woodshed in Kansas, for instance.) I don't think it would be too surprising for a Viewer to say, "I think this is the Statue of Liberty." However, it would be fairly unusual for a Viewer to say something like, "this is a 1968 Ford Mustang convertible." They'd probably get that there was an object, it was a vehicle, it was a car, it was blue... maybe things like, it is kind of old, or it is shiny, or it is in motion. If they were personally really "into" cars they might get more. But the degree of "energy" of the target (some scientists refer to this as a matter of Shannon Entropy, but that isn't really known yet) is part of what influences what degree of contact, and that relates to how much 'identity' as well, that a Viewer gets.
Note:
in the vast majority of RV sessions, the target is already
known to the analyst, so the issue of recognition is not
quite such a big deal. The analyst knows what they are
looking for. It is not always relevant that the Viewer
doesn't know what they are describing. Their job is to
describe; the analyst, who knows either the target or
the site or the suspicions about them, is responsible
for putting the data into context.
:PJ
I would like to also add that a viewer often recognizes what the target is during a session. At that time, it is most important for the monitor to shift the viewer to what is unknown about the site, as though giving him/her a new target to work on. For example, there is a practice target of the Empire State Building, and the viewer, recognizing it, declares that the site is the Empire State Building. Let us further say that the viewer, at some earlier point during the session had described a "high, windowed part". Then the monitor might say, "OK. Now, move to the "high, windowed part" and describe." There are two reasons for this:
By keeping the viewer continually working unknowns and never allowing them to identify anything, you keep the viewer's information as pollution-free as possible. The job of viewer is often a very unsatisfying one for this very reason. As a viewer, your mind is continually trying to stabilize itself by identifying where it is or by identifying something in its surroundings. The very minute success is gained, it is pulled out from under you and you are thrown back to unknowns. It is something you never really get used to, but once you help save that first hostage or help rescue that first abducted child, somehow you don't mind so much, any more. Lyn
|
| RETURN TO FAQ LIST |