The recent debate on Ideograms within CRV and other debates within the Facebook community forums have persuaded me to write this as I feel that anyone who wasn’t part of Remote Viewing emergence into the public domain circa 1995 onwards won’t be aware of these details and I feel that the history of this is relevant and essential knowledge to understand the underlying hostilities between differing CRV/RV methodologies and its details like Ideograms.
I need you to know that I write this from a perspective of not having a particular dog in the fight other than in trying to record as accurately as possible the history of RV. I urge caution at times because over the decades I have seen some pretty heated flame wars within RV. It’s very easy for trainers to create very dedicated students who will fight to the death to defend their particular teacher in some small cultism type behaviours. We have seen this time after time, decade after decade. So keep this in mind when reading Face book posts and alike. I have no particular allegiance to any school or method of CRV in this fight. I have respect for all camps. All people, all methods.
When RV became public the Internet was young, modems only worked at a maximum 4KB per second -so even a large single image took several minutes to uncover line by frustratingly long line. Remote Viewing exploded into public awareness in 1995 due to both the CIA admission of a program and the Night line show, and several other combined things like some pending FOIA requests and the book Psychic Warrior which was initially from both Ed Dames and David Morehouse, but ended-up being a David Morehouse project and publication.
These combined events and others allowed RV to be public domain and there was a new hunger for information. Not long after these events a few email newsgroup boards were started (VWR, CRV) and people started to join wanting to know more. As well as the enquiring minds we were also lucky to have some of the Military viewers and others involved, join-in the conversations, some using real names, some using aliases.
Again, for context – the Internet was new, there were no remote viewing documentaries, no youtube videos, there were no RV manuals, in fact the CRV manual was wanted but this was kept back from many desperately wanting it at this ‘birth’ time.
And this time is also is where the conflicts started.
During these early days, it was a very interesting time. People like myself were constantly on these email forums asking questions, trying to get whatever information we could, and it was very scant. At the same time and over a period of years, emerged a selection of people who entered the forums and made extraordinary claims of being psychic government Spies and much more. This of course, led to many heated debates or ‘flame wars’ over peoples claims and so on.
CRV flame wars
In the email discussion on the VWR email forum in 1997, amongst others, there were discussion on CRV terminology (some details of this can be found In the book Remote Viewing Dialogues (page 227 onwards). As part of this discussion Lyn Buchan an explains that Ingo requested that people training in CRV not use his terminology because It was proprietary to him, which is why he made changes to his format of CRV.
I have seen similar repeat discussions between mainly Lyn and Paul Smith on this topic in other forums and places over the years, some with blame and other details over who and or why was involved. I won’t go into all these here. Maybe they will finally set the record straight themselves.
But, before we continue I need to add here that I have multiple contracts from Ingo’s employment as a sub contractor for SRI, and yes, CRV belonged solely to Ingo Swann, he owned it, he kept all training materials and this was always made abundantly clear that it was his property.
It’s also me belief from what I have seen that after Ingo was removed in 1985, that they could not then go on to teach and used CRV at SRI because:
- Ingo retained All CRV training materials.
- The training had Ingo himself as an integral cog in the CRV training.
- Ingo owned the copyright, so they couldn’t train without him/his permission.
It also makes sense that this is why the military had to get the (so far) trained students (one in all six stages, several in three stages) to create a training type manual so that they could themselves continue to use what they had paid for without the use of Ingo Swann. This became the CRV manual Paul Smith and others wrote and is the main CRV source material.
I would also like to add here for context that I have only seen one paper/document whereby Ingo gave permission for anyone to teach his CRV and that was to Ed Dames who went on to teach TRV. As a later addition to this story, I also know that when the filming took place for the final documentary about Ingo and his participation in remote viewing, a project that created hundreds of hours of footage with interviews of all the main players – Ingo specifically requested that anyone who taught CRV training for money NOT be included in the documentary on his life – It seems to me Ingo wasn’t particularly happy with the current CRV training situation – but alas, we won’t know fully why.
With all this information – it seems highly possible Ingo may have made that request Lyn states and it may be why he omitted the current CRV trainers form the video story of his RV life.
Anyway, back to the CRV differences because this also leads to the other debate we keep seeing online: Ideograms – a random approach or lexicon approach.
So, back in 1997 and ever since, probably every so many years, we see small flame wars, or debates over the differences in CRV and their approaches to ideograms and other things in the CRV methods. The main differences being between the Lyn Buchan and PSI CRV method and the Paul H Smith CRV method.
We know that Lyn says he was asked to change the definitions in CRV when training and he did so. This also follows into the debates and current debate about Ideograms and possible changes there too.
Lyn’s and other Methods approaches to Ideograms are that there are a few general ideograms that can be learnt and used in a way whereby the form/shape of the ideogram denotes what it could represent. I.E: a straight line = land, a wavy line = water, and so on. A lexicon or set visual language approach
The Paul Smith CRV approach and one described as such in the CRV manual he wrote based on his and others Ingo Swann training, takes a different approach that the form of the ideogram does not indicate its gestalt and that this is only derived from the probing of it.
Personally, as a person who has been using a close to original CRV but now customised version, I use the lexicon approach. I’m an artist and across all societal barriers there are ingrained common language art forms for things like: water, structures, mountains, and people. Across millennia and all barriers artistic sketches at this gestalt level seem to be similar and can be seen in all form of art form rock paintings to telepathy. After decades of research and from working with many different RV methods viewers I see no evidence or difference in either approach to work. I have seen no experiment or research on this. Both Ideogram approaches work.
Now, from examining Ingo’s documents and training materials I also see a confusion that may have led to this binary approach to Ideograms..
Bear in mind – there are no training documents on this from Ingo himself – only the training and lecture notes from his students. Yes, the lecture and training notes do say ‘Ideograms are not decoded on what they look like’ but I also see on every set of training notes from people like: (Tom McNear, Bill Ray, Hal Puthoff, Jaques Vallee) that all the examples of ideograms sketched, they are shown using this common language of discernable forms. Land=straight line, water=wavy line, mountain= up/down diagonals, and so on. So to me it shows confusion. My discussions on this enigma with Paul, he says that these are just showing examples at the lecture note stage. I’m not sure I’m convinced. But anyway, IMO, it doesn’t really matter – both approaches work. In fact when I mentor I allow the student to choose which Ideogram approach works best for them.
In my book Remote Viewing Dialogues – (pg 54) on the topic of Ideograms, Joe McMoneagle says:
//I might add that no amount of testing within a lab or elsewhere has ever proven the use of ideograms as improving anything. Over the long run, it’s the person’s ability to recognize what is being communicated (however it’s being communicated) that improves the performance. All the really good viewers eventually develop a style of their own for doing this, and eventually abandon sections and portions of the format.//
Now, I fully understand Paul’s argument that he is trying to teach as close to Ingo’s CRV vision as possible and I respect that, But it’s also an old vision. The CRV he is teaching is imo, a BETA or unfinished CRV, and that in being so rigid and not allowing changes, that this in the end will become or is damaging to the student. After all none of us are the person we were five or ten years ago, we learn, we adapt, we change. If a person hasn’t changed over a period of years of study then they haven’t really learnt anything.
In the same discussion from Remote Viewing dialogues Joe also says:
// The format is really good for teaching someone to get in touch with what’s going on inside their mind while cutting out a great deal of garbage that isn’t relevant. However, it’s like everything else in RV, it isn’t meant to be and end-all to continued improvement. Remember the format isn’t the protocol. Think of the learning part as being something akin to Martial art of the mind. You sort of pick up the basic moves through replication, But in order to really be good at it, you have to develop your own style – style that works, and works well that is. The proof is in the pudding.//
So, why do I say Beta version. Well, Ingo developed CRV from approx. 1979-85, then his contract was terminated and the CRV training Using Ingo was not expanded. During this time the documents show that CRV was always being reformed and rethought as Ingo advanced the methods whilst training the students primarily Tom McNear (the only Military student trained in all six CRV stages by Ingo).
The chronology and content of the communications and training reports in Ingo’s files and in the Star Gate FOIA documents clearly (to me) show a training course in development – not fully formed. Even on delivery of the main six stages, Ingo and to some degree Tom McNear was also experimenting with at least two other stages. They all knew it was raw and unfinished.
In The first set of CRV training notes written by a student into anything like a training manual (CRV stages I-VI and beyond Feb 1985), even Tom McNear postulates on potential further stages of CRV development as he records a potential of eleven stage of CRV. Tom Knew, Ingo knew that the CRV delivered to SRI and the military, was not the final and full CRV, there was more to it.
After Ingo’s passing, I had the pleasure of discussing some of this with the last person trained in CRV by Ingo (Tom B), Tom was trained by Ingo in return for his Web services over a long period of approx. ten years. Tom told me he was probably the only other person other than Tom McNear fully trained in all stages of Crv by Ingo. Whilst discussing his training he details to me how it was different in structure than the CRV being taught on the training circuit. His six stage structure was:
Stage 1: Part 1: Gestalt Ideograms, Part 2: Multiple Ideogram Gestalts
Stage 2: Sensations
Stage 3: Dimensions
Stage 4: Sketches and Trackers
Stage 5: Tangible and Intangibles
Stage 6: Modelling Three Dimensionalities
This is supported by a short description of this changed format of CRV written on a document in Ingo’s personal archives, as well as correspondence to people whereby ingo discusses finding new advancements and stages to CRV and the intuitive process. Ingo also developed additional CRV stage which were:
Stage 7: Basis of the Mentals:
Stage 8: Phonetic
Stage 9: Mind Melding (includes six types of)
Stage 10: No English equivalent, requires a neologism which has been identified but withheld
Stage 11: Withheld.
Stage 12: Stage 12 is still hypothetical: Controlled Multidimensional “Travelling” (MDT?)
I am in no doubt that Ingo, in the years after he was no longer required by SRI/the military to teach CRV, that he did tinker with it, that he did make changes and advance CRV well past the version taught today – what I call the BETA version.
Recent discussions with Paul Smith in personal communications have shown we have differing viewpoints on this, but of course they would. He is defending something he is personally and financially invested in. All I can say is I have no reason to disbelieve what Tom B has told me and what the Ingo papers, correspondence and his personal attitude indicate. That is that CRV was further developed and changed by Ingo in later years.
I’m also convinced that IF the SRI/Military program had not removed Ingo, that CRV would be way different and better today that it is recorded in the student compiled training manual/s. It would probably have something more akin to the hypothesized Tom McNear further stages or even the ones Ingo recorded (above) in these later CRV changes.
So, with this is mind, and knowing, seeing that Ingo reworked CRV more than once in early development, that he later developed it further, made changes, then I see no reason why there isn’t room in CRVland for both Ideogram approaches and other possible changes along the way.
CRV should not be an enforced and static method, never allowed to be changed, adapted or expanded. This isn’t how Ingo worked, this isn’t what he did, he was a constant explorer trying new things, new ideas, new advancements. Ingo was a creative genius and absolute workhorse when it came to exploring new ideas, techniques and developments. This is also clearly shown when reading the Star Gate documents, his papers and in the testimonials from people who worked with Ingo.
So there we have it, the CRV conflict between CRV schools has been simmering for over two decades, there are differences in their approaches, some probably called for and justified, maybe even called for by Ingo himself that would make sense to me – he clearly had issues with people teaching CRV later in his life.
We should not be scared of changes – CRV was never meant to be stuck on Ingo’s initial vision of it, it was always a work in progress, his first student had suggested changes, Ingo had additional stages, he later went on to make changes – So does it really matter how one does the Ideograms if it works.
Any sense that Ingo’s way is the only way is not imo, the vision he would have wanted for CRV, stuck in his 1984 version of CRV. At least that’s not what he was developing and teaching his students in his later years.
In the words of Tom McNear from his 1985 CRV training notes:
//Future stages will continue to develop, I believe, in the general order which I presented them in the chapter. The Future of CRV is only limited by the imagination and efforts of the people pursuing it.//
In my final comments I would just like to say to any person thinking of learning CRV then yes go for it. Ingo’s creation is genius, it works. And yes for the first few years try to stick to whatever CRV school/approach you decide upon Lyn’s, Paul’s or even someone else’s.
Stick to it rigidly until it becomes intuitive – until it become muscle memory, do not change it. But Do not keep it static forever and hinder the way it works with you as an individual, allow it to finally change, adapt, to overcome. Allow it and yourself to create a symbiosis that works for you as an individual. Have the imagination to take the teaching away from its early 1984 roots as I believe Ingo would have intended and how he practised himself.
Nightline – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvkgoB0ECks
Remote Viewing Dialogues, Daz Smith – https://amzn.com/B00VILKZGE
CRV – Controlled Remote Viewing: Manuals, collected papers & information to help you learn Controlled Remote Viewing, Daz Smith – https://is.gd/GAi0q9
(CRV stages I-VI and beyond Feb 1985), even Tom Mcnear – (can be found in the book above.)
Communications with Tom B – Daz Smith
The twelve identified stages – Ingo Swann, UWG archives (no date).