Remote Viewing and Energy

I would subtitle this "IG Points Out the Obvious".


This morning me and my best friend were having a discussion about viewing -- which we do regularly of course. I don't even remember all the talk, but I remember what I was thinking about afterward. Mostly, it came down to this:

Why? When we get the totally wrong target, why? When we clearly perceive specific data, and it turns out to be wrong, why?

I don't care about data you screw up on your own, which is the majority of problem data frankly. I don't care about poor contact or process issues. All of those are visible at feedback, and you can learn from feedback, and that is a sport-skill. No, I am talking about when a viewer has good contact, has a clear experience, and yet that is not about the target intended. In that instance feedback is useless, is more harm than help to likely psi experience, and we don't learn anything except not to trust ourselves.

Everybody has this in RV; nobody is exempt. Everybody seems to accept that's the way it is. Even in the professional lab, viewers will include 'getting the correct target to start with' as a separate statistic; one may say, "I'm on target about 68% of the time, but when I am, about 92% of my data is accurate." Everybody accepts that some portion of the time, a viewer has a perfectly clear piece of data that is totally wrong, or even an entire clear session that is totally wrong.

Nobody has a clue what to do about it. There are all kinds of things people come up with to try and combat this, from the target selection, to tasking, to session cool-down, warm-up, session methodologies, feedback rituals, you name it. Most things 'initially' seem to help but eventually it's the same accuracy % as usual. As an entire field we are just stuck: sometimes we suck and we have no idea how to fix it. The only consolation is that everybody does, to varying degrees; the only thing consistent about RV is its inconsistency.

I accept that this is the case. But I can't let it go. I want to know, why?


As I blogged previously (and those posts should be read before this one: first Aspect RV and then Archetype RV), off and on I have worked on my own approaches to viewing. Some of this is because spontaneous experience has made me more interested in the "session dynamics and experience" than most people are. In other words, most viewing is only about accurate data. I care about that, but to me the overall process is a point of fascination that I like to explore. Sometimes that helps me with data, such as Aspect RV; sometimes it tends to distract me from the data, such as with Archetype RV.


I was in the kitchen this morning making my kid a blueberry coconut pancake. As I'd mixed in the blueberry muffin crumbles from the hilariously failed muffins of the night before, the batter was crazy thick, so I sat down in a chair waiting for it to cook for a long while, and thought about it more.

If I only knew where to look, I griped to myself. I mean, let's say that I have some distortion in energy which causes me to not-perceive, or wrongly-perceive, Data X in Target Y. Fine, but how do I know what to work on, to directly address that distortion, if that's what the problem is? And what about when a whole session is on a seemingly wrong-target? Is that a distortion too? Where does a person LOOK for "what energies to address" in an archetype meditation, for example, to try and meet RV problems head-on and proactively work them out?

Using "the target" in general didn't work. I had tried addressing "the viewer's relationship with the target" in my Archetype RV. While I didn't give up the gut-feeling that this was generally the right road, still, that obviously was not the answer, and I was not planning to take up that same experiment in my next viewing cycle.

I pondered the problem. Then I pondered the solution: I have tools for working on stuff, after all.

I can build "mental tools" in my head, such as Richard Bandler talks about in NLP and which I assume most of us do a little bit automatically anyway. If I know that problem-Z is occurring, I can build a tool to help, for example. I can use my energy tools, such as reality-meds and arch-meds, to deal with things I know are problems. If there's issue X, I can work on that outside of RV to try and improve myself.

In short, I have a hammer. The problem is, I don't know where to find the bloody nail!

Sure, maybe "strong enough intent" would fix it but that isn't dealing with the problem I feel--that is strong-arming the solution 'through' the problem in that single instance. You still have the problem intact and it's just as likely to ruin some other session that didn't have some overwhelmingly powerful 'intent-assistance' factor instead.

What good are tools if you can't use them? If you don't even know where to look to find the real problem?


"IG," I half-whined at her, "Can you help me with this? Can you help me understand what is going wrong? Or maybe help me understand what I can work on to improve it?"

I had a clear sense of assent from her, and then a ROTE, as Bob Monroe described it -- a 'thoughtball' -- hit me and unfurled. This was multi-level conceptual and contains a bit of stuff, so it takes a bit of explaining.

But at the moment it unrolled in me, my first thought was:

Holy cats! That's so obvious! That's so perfect! That might work!

and my second thought was,

Why the hell didn't I think of this before?!


The first part of the thoughtball was like a "concept-relationship" and almost seemed as much like math-and-logic as it did anything else. It's difficult even to articulate in English but let me try. I used to troubleshoot manufacturing line and related process-flow issues, so I think for me it's easiest to put it into that context.

Let's say you have a goal and intent and plan and raw materials: you're going to build a bunch of somethings. And, you have a process for building these somethings --a manufacturing process --on one side of an equation. And then you have an output --that manufacturing result --on the other side.

Somewhere in the middle, you have got some obvious problems. Something is failing in your process. You're ending up with some products perfect, some products deformed, and some products that go in with the intent of being metal widgets and come out as stuffed animals. What the hell?! You must have several things going wrong somewhere in the middle! It's inconsistent, and nobody is sure what is going wrong, so you immediately start to troubleshoot.

But it's black-box, to use a software term. You cannot SEE the actual manufacturing process for some reason.

Well, that is an analogy to the issue that Remote Viewing has. There is a portion of our process which is black-box, which we neither know nor understand. People get target contact or they don't. While a myriad of factors can lean on helping or hurting that situation, still nobody knows why it does or doesn't happen or correctly. We're stumbling in the dark and trying to do everything else right and hoping for the best.

So archetype meditations, and reality meds -- or 'energy work' as there are many forms of that -- can address black-box problems, I already knew that. I just don't know "where to look."

Where do I find the connection between "here is a data point and/or session that obviously had a problem," and "the actual problem" so I can take my hammer and go pound on it?

And suddenly in a sort of blinding flash of the-obvious, I understood:

It's the data.

The data is the key. It's like the task-number-leading-to-the-problem.

Right now, we set an 'intent' as tasking and describe it as a session. How much more black box can you get than that? Yet we have no trouble following that intent, whether it's task# or something else we just address ourselves to.

Do I want to work on "what energies or energetic relationships caused distortion" in a given data point of a session? What kind of rocket science makes that hard to figure out? The answer is: specifically address yourself to the issues that caused distortion in that data point.

Not the entire target as an archetype which is how I'd been approaching it previously. Not only is that absolutely huge and complex compared to the surface data about one tiny aspect of something we are targeting, but it's also containing tons of energy that has nothing to do with whatever got messed up. It's like wanting to clean your house, and trying to accomplish this by cleaning up Chicago. It's overkill in a major way. The troubleshooting has got to be more specific.

The model IG gave was sorta similar to a reality-med, a form of energy work.



In my head, the way I perceived it (I'm sure a translation):

Each "data point" was the end-result of a "relationship". The 'relationship' was defined like a string.

Like a 4 foot long, 1 inch diameter, "cord of energy".

At one end is what I'd call the "core pattern": the energy of the target (which is part of us).

At the other end is what I'd call the "data point": the recorded end-result of that energy string.

The energy-string itself was in us, part of us. It is about our relationship to ourself.

I saw a gathering of strings, like thick cords of light for a bunch of floating balloons, but no balloons. Each string showed its "issues". Many looked just fine. But, some were stiff in places with a hard-angle kink to another direction. Some had knots or frays in them. Some had parts of them dirty and gummy-gunky. I understood that to function cleanly and clearly, they should all be clean all the way through, relaxed, not stiff, not angled or kinky, not knotted or frayed. Essentially, the energy of the target (which is of ourself; in my mental model, we 'locally replicate the non-local pattern' as how we 'get' target info) has to travel through us. It has to get through our body--the full energy body, not just the fully physical one in this focus-level--and there are often lots of things in the way, things that will block energy, shunt energy off, distort energy from slightly to completely, etc.

We would not know we had these issues, that we needed a little clean-up inside for better clarity, were it not for viewing. It shows us up close and personal exactly what kind of energetic clarity we have within ourselves. (Most session problems are process problems and none of that applies to this discussion and concept. It is core-experience-wrong that I am talking about.)

Every 'relationship point' that we create in a remote viewing session is a unique trail, a distinct energy string. If we are viewing a truck in two different targets, there will be some similarities in that string, but also differences. This would be the case even if it were the same truck, but to a lesser degree. And some of that energy is going to be present in other trails of completely different things, which have some overlap in concept, composition, dynamic, or something.

But if there is a specific energy that we "deal with" -- that we clean, unkink, unknot, etc. -- for one target, then we have dealt with that energy period. Any other target we get that has that particular energy involved, we are going to be clear with it. Of course, we may not be clear with the rest of what's involved in an 'energy string' even of similar data, but we will at least have addressed some of it with the first session, and the results are cumulative.


The cool thing was I had no impression of this requiring a lot of time or effort. In fact it seemed really easy and obvious, like this is right on the surface. All you have to do when finishing the feedback part of viewing, is ask for all the energy points where distortion happened, and take those strings and pull them into your body and imagine cleaning them and healing them etc.

I had a sense this quick and simple little approach could be used during viewing and after viewing (before session submission), as well.


My friend pointed out that you could build a mental tool to deal with this automatically. I imagined a star-trek-like teleporter pad, where the energy is holding something in stasis, and that something is an energy-cord. Either lots of pads (1 for each string that had issues) or just 1 that was 'cumulatively representative' of all of them, like with archetype work. You press something on a panel and the energy is re-arranged at the sub-atomic level to be clean and perfect.


I don't know exactly how I'm going to implement this yet but I definitely am. Actually I'm having a hard time not diving into viewing immediately in my enthusiasm but I'm supposed to be on an archmed series until end of year. Maybe I should quit being such an extremist and do a little more mix of things.


Anyway, in the end, the answer was blindingly simple: we have a glowing arrow to exactly what problem(s) we have in viewing, in the form of the data or session that is or has a problem. If I'm looking for the door to open to "deal with" something, there it is.

The only problem I'm having is understanding why this is an epiphany; why it isn't just so simple it's obvious.

.