Archetype RV - the Process

When I'm in an altered state it's often difficult to remember what the hell I'm supposed to be doing in a session.

I made a little desktop post-it for my arch process so I could kind of open one eye and look at the list while viewing. I wondered if I'd ever posted this, since I've talked about the 'archetype RV' and 'aspect RV' methods I've developed over time. I don't think I've posted the current version anyway, of the arch version, so I'll go through it here.

(The points are below the explanation.)

--------------------------------------

There are several major categories of the session.

* There are ADMINISTRATIVE points, which is basically just the physical process or points of protocol.

* There are EXPERIENCE points, which is what I call it when I am (for example) working with the target as an archetype, or with Inner Guide.

* There are DATA points, which is what I call it when I am (for example) literally attempting to get information about the target "as focused via feedback and/or the tasker's intent".

However, in the case of archetype RV, there are several sections which are both of those (both data and experience).

The data is not pure at those combined points--or maybe it is more pure, I guess it depends on how you look at it. It is experientially-based and target-influenced as a me+target=third thing. Rather like sex, it is the sum of the parts of both my and the target archetype's experience and how we perceive each other and work together. It is basically us getting to know each other, and the target and I sharing some learning about whatever IT wants--and whatever I want--and some of both.

Although this experience in some respects is likely to touch on data that is part of or related to the actual target data, most of it is either not, or is not easily discernible as being so. These points of the session are about genuinely exploring the target as a collective of consciousness, with respect and interest and fascination. So in summary, the data at points 5-8 is not likely to be the literal "surface data matching feedback or tasker-intent" that is RV's true goal.

My hope and reason for doing this, is because I want to genuinely 'get to know' targets. Not just get surface impressions, as if I am strip-mining the universe for cheap quick mineral facts I can walk away with for my convenience, but instead, a caring, fascinated, "mutual exploration" between the target and I, with respect, so perhaps I will understand the target and its many elements and nature better internally--and perhaps, if I'm lucky, future targets with similarities or points of overlap, I might have better contact with as a result.

Point 9 is where I am asking the target to have mercy and help me focus only on "just give me the facts jack" as Remote Viewing technically wants. This is the single clean RV point in the session.

Point 10 is a summary point. This amounts to a 'presentation session' as I call it. Basically it is a review of point 9 data with the added consideration of the 'experience' of points 5-8, some summarizing, some fleshing-out, some cleaning up of the write-up. It does involve psi, so I still consider it session work, but it is more like adjunct session work. The session work in point 9 is true session -- whatever comes as data is the data. Point 10 has more evaluation involved, and is what creates the final product I post or hand over.

(I know, legions of viewers are going, 'What?! You don't hand over your RAW data?!' No. You get what I give you, if I'm viewing for you. My sessions have personal insights that are private, abbreviations everywhere, process notes that are not about the data but about me, stuff I want to vent by writing and forgetting, and are nearly illegible. Point 10 creates something that is legible and comprehensible. Now, if I screw it up between 9 and 10, that is my fault and my problem. But learning to end up with a presented product that is workable for onlookers or users of the data, is one of my goals. I realize this contradicts one of the basic doctrine points of RV and 'raw data' but you know... so what. I know people who sort so much data in their head, what ends up on paper isn't remotely 'raw' (if it EVER is, don't get me on that argument...); I simply choose to do some of my processing on paper, but it's private. Viewer Don Williams has a great debate with this idea. See the link on P-S above and his comment with that.)

I now consider point 12 (feedback) to be a data collection and experience point as much as an administrative point, because with this method, so often I get additional info and have some experiential sense of the target perceiving "my" perception of IT with the feedback. The data isn't in protocol at that point but it's not part of the session so it doesn't matter.

I believe that as an experience point, the feedback "shared with" the target while it and I are "woven together", is not only very important to "internal learning" and "integration of experience," but this has resulted in more amazing experience thus far than just about any other thing I've done in RV. When you go into this as a genuine "joint venture," it's still amazing when it turns out to be exactly that; when the target as consciousness perceives YOU, and wants to know what you are like, and has opinions about how you/your people perceive it. This is the part where I'm forcibly reminded that this process is not merely something on paper and not merely a nice idea in theory, but is a pretty hard core psychic experience in practice.

***

Now so far, the problem is this approach takes awhile. Being the procrastinating whiner I am, I have often ended up getting to like somewhere in point 6 or 7 and then having to jump to feedback. Obviously since the main data and session work is at the 9-10 point, that's a disaster for the data, which hasn't really even been pursued in "what matches feedback/tasker-intent" mode yet.

I've been unfair to myself and the method a bit, obviously. If I skip the real data steps, I have no right to gripe about it because it seems like the experience was better than the data... of course, doh. So I'm going to be working on a time setup here that will give me the real time I need for doing one of these sessions correctly at least a couple times a week. It takes awhile to write up the experience as well (as I'm only recording data during session) so that I have some record of it. Overall it's a significant time investment.

--------------------------------------

SESSION FORMAT (ARCHETYPE RV)

[-E-] = Experience
[-D-] = Data
[-A-] = Administration

0 > Open Session [-A-]

1 > Go to Round Plateau w/IG [-E-]

2 > Give him task#/target info [-E-]

3 > Work with archetype [-E-]

4 > Have IG weave us together [-E-]

5 > Target Lead... [-E-][-D-]

6 > My Lead... [-E-][-D-]

(I let target choose the sequence of 5&6)

7 > Joint Venture... [-E-][-D-]

8 > Anything Else... [-E-][-D-]

9 > Basic Data... [-D-]

10 > Presentation subSession... [-D-]

11 > Recording/Posting Data... [-A-]

12 > Get Feedback, review w/Arch [-E-][-D-][-A-]
* sometimes point 16 goes here instead

13 > Have IG unweave us [-E-]

14 > Ask IG to clean/heal/adjust me [-E-]

15 > Close Session [-A-]

16 > Record Overall Experience [-A, sometimes -E intervenes]

--------------------------------------

And that's it. None of this is complicated but it requires a good deal of "attention" and of course, ability to hold a solid "interactive meditate state" which not everybody can do without practice.

This particular process is the *polar opposite* of the traditional CRV as presented in the "very complex on paper do it as fast as you can without thinking" approach.

This has zero rules about the on-paper--is totally freeform in that respect, though I have my own format that Point 10 would usually present something in.

It is entirely focused on taking time for "genuinely getting to know" the target--NOT just "as data" but as what THE TARGET believes itself to be and wants to share.

It could be considered an "animist" approach to consciousness in this respect (everything is consciousness; every grouping of consciousness has some degree of awareness, some more than others; all able to be interacted-with by human consciousness).

It is like slow-food home cooking of gourmet meals with fresh garden ingredients, vs. grabbing your fast food as you drive past the window. It is a deliberate attempt to focus with respect and gratitude and interest on and with the target. I tend to agree with Seth who once said that "Information wants to be known." I feel that my session experience is as much an opportunity for the target to get something out of it as for me.

Some of the reason for this is because I really AM interested in getting to know "the nature of things" -- that's the magickian hidden in me I suppose -- sure my ego wants the data, wants a good session to brag about and feel proud of, but my inner-self wants to genuinely KNOW the target, in the fullest way possible. The archetype RV process is a kind of making love to another aspect of consciousness in the universe.

Which leads to the obvious question: what if the target is something horrible, like an evil person, or a bloody death-disaster? Sometimes it is. These things are as much a part of the universe as anything else. Does the archetype work mean I get way, way, WAY "closer" to "the target" even when it's something we would consider horrible? Yes. It does.

So far (maybe fortunately), the worst I've had while using this method is a woman at probably one of the worst points of her life, literally bawling in grief. In that session, I ended up feeling there was literally a lost soul, and connecting with Archangel Michael and holding the intent to fully free the energy. That was a pretty amazing experience. And it did turn out to be what I said data-wise, though frankly that paled compared to my interest in the non-feedback portions of the experience.

I've had several sessions in this format where the target was a 'thing' which interacted and shared with me as 'an identity' (such as Ganymede, and the Edmonton Tornado, as two examples, though I've had others prior).

And, I've had several sessions in this format where I felt a definite sense of spiritual squishing, as if another identity was climbing into the tight space of my psychology with me, and it's had side-effects both during and after the session that seem to reflect much more of a 'merge' than is normal even for most psychic work let alone for RV. Dealing with it after takes a little time and is the reason I added in a step in my process where IG basically helps me deal with the fallout of such experience.

My boyfriend gets pissed off when he feels like he is talking to someone else. I have to keep reminding myself not to talk to him after archetype-RV sessions as a result, but since they are often neat experiences I want to talk about, I end up feeling sure it will be fine, but it never is. He'll be giving me grief about my first real merge like that, the Steve McQueen target (which HE tasked me, ironically!) till my dying day I bet. The real problem is that who I am prior to a full de-weave by IG (and awhile after that, frankly) is just who I am and I'm neither sorry nor concerned, at that moment, about what anybody else thinks about it. It does, of course, make the tasking somewhat more important to be concerned about, for obvious reasons.

--------------------

I have a lot of competing theories. One of them is that just maybe, if viewers got MORE from a given session experience than we do, that far fewer sessions (read: years of time) might be required prior to more advanced levels of skill. I think it's possible that if I truly get to know the target on the inside--its fuller nature, the target from its own point of view, etc.--that perhaps I will be accomplishing one of two things:

1 - better familiarity on my part, or

2 - better acceptance/interaction with me on the target's part.

Yes... this does suggest that I am saying humans are not the only sentience and that targets have more spiritual depth than gum wrappers even if it were, in fact, a gum wrapper. I've considered whether this might qualify as a displacement of responsibility or a projecting-upon (excessive anthropomorphism), but I choose to see it as a matter of respect, and an understanding that psi works *because* either the universe is much more "me" than I realize (in which case I should be interacting with it with love), or the universe is much less "me" than I realize (in which case I should be interacting with it with love), but in either case, that psi works because of the "relationship" that we are able to have with anything, anywhere, anytime.

I'm all about that relationship. I realize that in RV-proper, the data on paper is what matters most, but I am interested in the relationship first, and the data second. It is my hope that this kind of focus will actually improve the data in the end by better connecting me with the target in the beginning. We'll see.

--------------------

Concerning familiarity, and thinking that a 'deeper interaction with the target' might increase how much "true understanding" I hold inside to help me with future RV, I'm applying the following logic to it: in my experience, it doesn't matter what you are doing--software programming, italian cooking, learning to speak japanese--the more you "fully immerse yourself" into what you are doing, the more you see two specific results:

1 - better, deeper, more complete knowledge of the art you are pursuing, and

2 - a deeper level of understanding that can be applied in varying degrees to the rest of the universe.

In other words, every one of the zillion elements--and the sum of their parts divided a thousand ways--that you glean from #1, becomes part of your base repository of understanding, things you grok at the core level and don't need to consciously think about any more.

Of everything else in the world, many of them are going to have one or more of the components, elements, dynamics, relationships, sequences, etc. etc. that you've absorbed. Everything which is already familiar is--already familiar. Is that not the whole goal of RV practice, to make the intuitive experience of elements whether disparate or complex "more familiar", so that we can more accurately comprehend and communicate?

Well, that's what we work on with practice. But I have long felt that my experience of RV, even though the sessions were sometimes good data-wise and the experiences sometimes good contact-wise, just seemed like it was missing some depth. I felt like someone who's had quick sex and shallow experiences and liked it all just fine but eventually started thinking hmmmn, you know, isn't there something more here?--and felt driven to pursue something deeper, something more meaningful, something which would make what seems the same experience on the surface, into something more richly rewarding and, hopefully, noticeably better in end-result, as well.

We'll see. I'm still at the bare-bud stage with this. I haven't had time to do that much with it, but hope to find a lot more time in the coming future, now that I have left all online RV stuff, and aside from "life", am simply writing and doing personal stuff.

--------------------

I guess at some points I've just felt like, although RV works, the degree of consistency (how often it works and to what degree) are just not acceptable to me. If what you're doing isn't working, do something else, as the saying goes. I mean what I was doing worked--to the degree it worked for anybody, maybe a little moreso--but it just doesn't seem like enough to me. I feel like we are missing some utterly huge, gigantic, core and central things that we are so oblivious to and will feel like morons if we ever discover it. I don't know what that is, but I know that the best way around something is usually through the middle, so that's kind of what this is.

--------------------

It may turn out that this is not workable; that it is fun but not ideal for RV. Initially that was my impression but I was unfair with the process, as I noted above, so I am going to give it a proper go this time and record the results well enough for me (and onlookers) to get a decent look.

And if it turns out to be totally non-ideal in some way, that'll be ok too. I believe it is worth the experiment. I don't feel this 'has' to work; I'm not going to try and force one shape into another in my eagerness to be 'right' in this case, because I think no matter WHAT the answer, it is all equal; it's still an interesting experiment worth doing. And whatever the answer turns out to be for me, might be different for others anyway. So the answer doesn't matter.

And if it turns out to be dangerous in some way, as some people have insisted that "interacting with the target" IS, then I guess I'll learn the hard way and onlookers can just learn vicariously. (As the joke goes, it may be that my sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.)

But if it turns out to have value to the viewing end result for me in the end, then it will have been well worth the effort, despite the more intensive amount of time and attention required.

PJ