[VWR]-Digest: V2 #84
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 16:33:40
+0200
From: "Liam " <liam@zmatrix.com>
Subject: [VWR] VWR AOLs in ERV
Hi Joe and all;
Liam here. Good to see you back Joe. I was getting worried about
you. When a person reaches your age, Joe, he ought to check in
with
his friends every now and then to let then know he is OK.
snip
>Come on guys! Your comments imply that someone can't avoid
AOL in an
>ERV mode of operation. If I'm supposed to be doing ERV (at
least
>that's what everyone has been calling it but me) then, that
is just
>not true. Also, are you guys implying that AOL "almost
never
>happens" in the CRV mode? That would be just a wee bit
over the top
>for me. (You must have been hitting the sauce again, Liam? Of
course
>Gene, being Irish has an excuse.) Such statements also imply
that
>there is some unique method of determining AOL in CRV which
works
>far better, or more times than not, which does not agree with
any of
>the research--post 1986.
snip
Liam again. As far as I know Joe, I have not been cavorting with
the
demon rum recently. Of course at my age it is hard to tell the
difference between a blackout and Alzheimer's. I did check around
the
house. There is nothing broken and I found no bail bonds
receipts,
so I guess I am still sober. I do not think I implied that you
cannot
avoid AOLs in ERV (I have watched you work and know you are an
expert
at this, and I do not think I do a bad job of it myself). I also
did
not mean to imply that AOL does not happen in CRV. I believe that
AOL takes place in each style about equally. The difference is
the
para visual aspect of CRV. Plus, Ingo developed a way in CRV to
identify and deal with AOL. He went further and developed a
method
where in stage four and five AOL is used to obtain information
about
the site. I agree that AOL is no greater problem in ERV for an
experienced, good, viewer than it is in CRV. But for most of the
people on the list who are new; AOL will be a greater danger in
ERV
than it is in CRV. The basic difference you and I have in this
Joe,
is that you are carrying the baggage of over 20 years experience
and
research in this field. This causes you to make objective
decisions
based on empirical evidence. I, on the other hand, carry no such
baggage. This gives me the freedom to make subjective comments
based
on personal experience and "gut feeling." The bottom
line is RV is
magic, and Magic is by definition not definable.
snip
>In argument, I would say that many of your statements may be
very
>appropriate within a training scenario, but hardly apply
within a
>non-training scenario.
>This is sort of like saying because someone only drives a
certain
>kind or make of car all one's life, all other cars suck.
snip
It is Liam, back again. I am afraid I missed the point here Joe.
Gene has monitored both ERV and CRV. I have worked both CRV and
ERV
(I think it safe to say we both prefer ERV). So we have driven
both
kinds of cars. All cars have certain strengths. A Camaro is great
for driving down the autobahn (freeway) at 100 mph. If you need
to
go to the store to pick up a lot of food and booze, than a van is
better. If you want to go courting in Georgia, you need a pick up
truck. ERV is better for certain sites and CRV is better for
certain
sites. The ideal is for the operations officer to have the
ability to
work each target using both styles of RV.
snip
>Facts are; AOL is probably going to be a permanent and
significant
>problem with any method of remote viewing. Evidence produced
within
>labs suggests that no one methodology is capable of
identifying and
>extinguishing AOL any better than another over the long haul.
There
>have been significant runs of very low AOL or displays of
almost no
>AOL which have been done by individual remote viewers. So,
there are
>indications that some people might have a talent for
producing less
>AOL than others. But it does not appear to be method driven
since it
>doesn't hold up in testing across all remote viewers using
the same
>method.
>Also--I still don't understand what ERV is anyway?! I have
never
>heard an agreed upon definition for it. Who invented it? What
is it
>based on? And/or what does it mean?
snip
Liam again; Joe, I will tell the story one more time. At the
project we worked sites two ways. One way was CRV. We called the
other way ; "Joe Style." On a Tuesday, Skip Atwater
told me we had
received a new tasking from some organization. He intended to
work
two viewers against it CRV and one viewer "Joe style."
On Wednesday
morning Skip told me that Paul and somebody would be the CRVers
and I
would be the ERVer. I said great. Good Plan.. What the hell is
ERV?
Skip said he was using the term ERV in place of the term Joe
style.
This was the first time I ever heard the term ERV. I guess that
means
Skip coined the word and you invented the process. That makes you
the father of ERV. It is not necessary to support it (it is no
longer a minor) but you should at least acknowledge your
parenthood.
We do not need a DNA test, because it has your characteristics
all
over it. ERV is really "Little Joe."
This brings me to the meat of this post. I have received two
requests "off line" to explain what ERV is. My intent
was to post
back on-line so everyone else could jump in too. This way the new
people would not only be getting the Bible according to Liam. the
problem was; I had a real hard time coming up with a detailed
definition I was comfortable with. Every definition I came up
with
left me with more questions than answers. I suggest we all post
on
what we believe ERV is. Maybe by comparing and relating we can
come
up with a definition we can all live with, if not for the world,
than
at least for this group. Is anyone else willing to join in the
endeavor? Will you play Joe?
>I'll have a few sips of Cragganmore, and chase them with a
bottle of
>Guiness, just to show you I hold no ill towards the wee lads
across
>the strait; while I await your elogant response. (Sept
Stewart of
>Galloway/McMunagel-1532).
>Love you guys,
>Joe
Joe, you always had good taste in booze. I found that a pint of
guinness would wash the taste of anything else out of my
mouth.<g>
Only kidding. I have said on many occasions that you Scots make
the
second best whiskey in the world. When I was drinking I was never
known to turn down an offer of a bit of the stuff. Maybe you
could
do me a favor and have one for me. I like my Cragganmore with no
ice
and just a splash of water. It is always good to hear from one of
the old timers. Keep in touch
slainte
May the force be with you
Liam
>(AOL= "Analytical Overlay." The process of adding,
omitting or
>altering data received via psi means based upon logical
assumptions,
>memories, associations, et al. -- Moderator)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 15:51:12
-1000
From: Yaana Allen <yaana@aloha.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #83
HI everyone, just wanted to let
you know that the Hawai'i Remote Viewers' Guild
has finally put up our web site. It is stillin progress but there
are alot of
interesting things to see. This may look very different to work
done by others
you have seen , so take a look and let us know what you think.
http://www.hrvg.org
Aloha Yaana
- ----------------
Congratulations to you guys, and Aloha! -- PJ
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 22:19:12
-0400
From: Prudence Calabrese <prudence@largeruniverse.com>
Subject: [VWR] Does Sexual Energy Enhance Psi?
We have a group of around 25
viewers who are viewing at least 6 times a
week on all kinds of verifiable objectives (targets). These
viewers have
all been practicing for over a year. I have noticed that the
viewers with
the most consistent results as well as the most reliable data are
those who
are young men (in their early 20s) and women who are at least 40.
Since
both of these age/gender groups are at their sexual peak, could
it be that
sexual energy enhances remote viewing?
(Now, this is a general observation based on working with
relatively new
remote viewers over the past two years. It's not a study or
definitive
statement.)
Pru
- ------
Moderator's Note: Well Kundalini is associated with psi, and that
ties into it all of course. But hey, this brings up an
interesting
monitor-Viewer experiment that I might really like being part of!
LOL! (Send my husband out of the room...) -- PJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And see, no longer blinded by our eyes. - Rupert Brooke
Prudence Calabrese
Director
TransDimensional Systems
http://www.largeruniverse.com
tel: (770) 814-9410
fax: (770) 497-1129
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:45:49
+1000
From: Mark <bud@sphynxlinks.com.au>
Subject: Re: [VWR] AOLs in CRV
Hi Liam, I`m very surprised that
Ingo Swann`s rule no 1. should be so be
so inflexible coming from a man i believe to be quite the
opposite.
have a nice day
mark
Liam wrote:
> Liam here. As I recall Ingo had three rules for identifying
AOLs
> (Paul, you have the manual, so please feel free to jump in
here and
> clarify if I get off base.)
> Ingo's rules:
> 1. If it is a visual it is AOL
> 2. If the information contains the word like it is AOL (i.e.
it is
> rough like a mountain)
> 3. Information that is out of structure, or is not justified
by
> previous information (i.e.; Stage 1. flat, across, flowing,
> B. AOL Break mountain)
- --------------
Moderator's Note: Mark, I think you are taking all this a tad too
seriously. :-) Swann is notorious for insisting his students
stick
precisely to rules and so forth. Whether that makes him
inflexible
personally I have no idea, but I wouldn't dare speculate....
I think there may be some misunderstanding of AOL. People who
haven't had a teacher pounding it out to them in detail are
probably understandably missing a few pieces of info.
An AOL ("analytical overlay") is any piece of data that
is -- OR is
likely to be -- affected by assumptions, associations,
imagination,
et al. Data may come to you as one thing but is affected by YOU,
when processed by your mind, and by the time you write it down,
that
data may be something else.
Many AOL's have certain commonalities. These are just types of
datas found over time to have a higher incidence of analytic (or
other) overlay than others. Static visuals are one. Comparators
are
another. In CRV, you are taught to recognize data that has been,
or
MAY be, "affected data," ala AOL.
The common response to this, since AOLs are avoided, is to assume
that AOL's are wrong. That's not necessarily true.
It is true that they are avoided, because one of the points of
teaching somebody CRV is to help make them aware of how they are
processing data. Obviously the point is to learn to avoid
interfering with (messing up) your info as much as possible.
But AOLs are not necessarily wrong. For instance, something which
in
an early stage is a label and not a descriptor (e.g., "The
Eiffel
Tower," or LIKE the...) would be considered an AOL. But it
may be
totally accurate as far as the data goes.
Categorizing something as AOL does not mean that you are saying
"It
is wrong." You are simply saying, "I have this
information, and
based on the structure I'm working in, there is a high
probability
that this information has been affected by me in some way and may
be
inaccurate in part or in whole."
That is first and foremost to cause the student to recognize
their
own processing and to pay attention to how things are working
internally to them. It makes them recognize that they have
deviated
from the planned structure of the session. That may not be a BAD
thing; it is simply something that needs to be recognized.
It is second to train them into a more fundamental way of
processing,
where they tend to allow components rather than complete
'things',
something that is a learning curve for all viewers (e.g.,
students
finally begin to say, "flat, flowing, glistening, wet"
rather than "a
river," which is good, since it may be all the former but
may not be
the latter). The mind tends to want to package data into a
labeled
thing and hand it to us, providing us a label rather than detail,
and
it takes some work to train your mind into simply presenting the
literal components of data it receives, instead. This is part of
that training.
Thirdly, it is to point out to the monitor and later analyst what
is
going on with the Viewer. If you say "green garden"
because you had
a static flash of that, like someone just hung a picture in front
of
you for a split second, that may not have the same probability of
being accurate as if you received that data via a 'sensed
impression.' (Or, it may; it might depend on the person; but we
are
working on usually and generally's here.) If you make it an AOL
because of how you received the data, that is telling both the
monitor and the analyst something about that data which may be
relevent.
In CRV, the first real rule is that you have to write down
EVERYTHING
that you are able to consciously access or notice. That means
everything, even stupid stray thoughts, even conclusions, whether
right or wrong, in structure or out of it, you MUST write it
down.
And if it doesn't fit in the structure for whatever reason, it is
an
AOL generally. That doesn't mean it's wrong or even bad
necessarily.
Just that it is out of the planned structure of data acquisition.
The rules of CRV aren't there to beat people into psychic
submission
(though some may disagree <g>) but to work as a support for
the
Viewer. In training (and some of this depends on your
instructor),
there is "right and wrong" -- but that is concerning
the structure
itself. Once you're into regular RV, there is only accurate vs.
inaccurate -- and you don't know that till the feedback. Once
you've
demonstrated, as a student, that you work well in the structure
(have
learned to process and communicate according to those rules),
from
then on, YOU are the Viewer, and YOU are in charge. If you want
to
list 17 AOLs in each stage of your session, fine -- but in that
case,
you'd just better be RIGHT. ;-)
- -- PJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[VWR] Remote Viewing Discussion Group [closed and archived. see firedocs.com/remoteviewing/ home page for new list]
Moderated. Join-approval required. List Owner PJ Gaenir,
palyne@sciencehorizon.com
VWR archives are at Firedocs:
http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe: This list is now closed. See firedocs home for current list.
End of [VWR]-Digest: V2 #84