As most of you know already, Associative Remote Viewing is a useful approach for solving binary questions, the kind that can be answered with yes or no. Pendling is another such method, but it has a problem sometimes. If the person seeking the data has a personal stake in the answer, it can be difficult to keep from making the swing of the pendant indicate the preferred result, instead of the real one. Associative Remote Viewing, or ARV, can help get around that problem.
At least, ARV can help get around that problem if it is approached correctly.
This particular blog post is not about the basic mechanics. It is about solving some of the difficulties. For instruction about how to actually do ARV, consult GregK’s website. (http://www.remote-viewing.com/) He’s got a nice, clear set of instructions, with friendly illustrations and practice targets. P-I-A.edu also has some great instructional and practice material.
I’m not especially good at Remote Viewing of any kind, so I’m always on the lookout for new ideas about how to solve common problems with it. Good, solid practice is the most obvious of these, of course, and I don’t do enough of it. Happily, remote viewing is not one of the psychic skills that dies off if you too much of it, the way card-guessing seemed to be (Targ, R., Katra, J,. Bown, D., Wiegand, W., 1995). Even Joseph McMoneagle needed to practice solidly to get a good handle on his RVing. The rest of us just need to buckle down (Gaenir, P.J., McMoneagle, J.W., 2002).
You already knew that you need to practice, though. So did I. What else can we do?
When you are first starting out, it is helpful to make your practice sessions as easy as you can, by avoiding obvious distractions. The usual advice is to have a snack to keep your tummy from rumbling and to ensure that other parts of your digestive tract won’t be nagging at you to attend to their needs, to put it delicately. This is sound advice.
Using practice targets instead of anything that actually matters might or might not be helpful. The jury’s out on that one. Try both. Do some practice runs with the targets on PIA or GregK’s site, or one of the other similar practice sites. The pressure is almost non-existent. To make a contrast, try a similar number of runs to predict whether or not certain numbers will show up in the next lottery. Specify the lottery, when you do so, and buy a ticket. How many numbers you “check” for is determined by how many practice runs you want to do. A sample target question would be: “Does the number 14 show up in the winning combination in Saturday’s TriState Pick-Six lottery?” Each question needs two RV targets, one for yes and one for no, but this isn’t difficult to set up. It will be more useful if someone else selects the RV targets, to avoid getting caught up in forced choices.
Were your results better with the added stress, or with the purely academic sessions?
There are all sorts of distractions which can interfere with a good session, including but not limited to your roommate playing loud music, your cat requesting attention, the strange and unpleasant smells from your neighbour’s unsuccessful cooking attempts, and the rattling of a cargo train passing within twenty metres of your window. According to Mr. McMoneagle and Dr. May, you can get around any of these by “adopting the proper attitude that these external things simply do not matter” (McMoneagle, J.W., May E.C., 2004).
It is also a good idea for the person who is selecting the actual targets to choose nice, easy pictures or objects, for beginners. According to Targ et al (1995), “shape, form and color are described much more reliably than the target’s function, or other analytical information.” A clip-art version of a bright red fire hydrant is an idea example, because it has a basic colour and a few basic shapes.
Avoid psyching yourself out, if the data you’re looking for is a bit in the future or the past. The evidence so far is that it makes little or no difference to your results (Targ, R. et al., 1995, and Jaegers, B., n.d.). Will you make mistakes? Probably. Everyone else does. Your mistakes in future and past targets are likely to be about the same percentage as for targets in the present (Gaenir, P.J., McMoneagle, J.W., 2002).
Gaenire, P.J., McMoneagle, J.W. (2002). Interview #001. PJ Gaenir’s Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection, RV Oasis Discussion Group Interview Series. http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/firedocs-001-mcmoneagle.pdf
Jaegers, B. (n.d.). Personal correspondence.
McMoneagle, J.W., May, E.C. (2004). The Possible Role of Intention, Attention and Expectation in Remote Viewing. Proceedings of Presented Papers, The Parapsychological Association Convention 2004, pp 399-406.
Targ, R., Katra, J., Brown, D., Wiegand, W. (1995). Viewing Future: A Pilot Study with an Error-Detecting Protocol. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 9 (3), pp. 367-380.