Psionic Constructs

Instructor: Rainsong
Date: June 16, 2007 (Saturday)

<Rainsong> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

<Aphanas> Evening, Rain

<Jael> Good evening, rain

<confuded> good evening

<Rainsong> Tonight’s seminar is an introduction to Psionic Constructs. It is my intention to follow it up with another Construct seminar slightly later in this series. Probably in late July or August.

<Rainsong> This one is deliberately basic, in order to have a relatively complete psionic “primer” in the archives of our website. 😀

Continue reading


Instructor: Rainsong (RainTurtle)
Date: May 19, 2007 (Saturday)

<Rainsong> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

<Aphanas> Good evening, Rain.

<Jael> Good evening

<Ally> Good evening =)

<PrinceSendai> Good evening

<Rainsong> As some of you might be aware, there is a class in here tonight. IF you aren’t looking for a real-world psionics class – as opposed to an RPG – this might be a good time to leave, before you get too weirded out.

<Rock> Good evenign.

<Rainsong> The topic for this evening is “Centering”.

<Rainsong> (I was fairly sure that only experienced/knowledgeable folks and possibly some very new folks who thought that the idea of an online class was novel in itself…

Continue reading

Rudimentary Healing

Instructor: RainTurtle
Date: March 3, 2007 (Saturday)

<RainTurtle> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

<Aphanas> Evening, Rain.

<Jael> Good evening, Rain

<Jael> Thanks for teaching

<RainTurtle> The topic this evening is rudimentary healing, by psionic means.

<Firestorm> RT: are we talking about healing the physical body, or otherwise?

<RainTurtle> By rudimentary, I mean that only a basic knowledge of Anatomy and Physiology is required to avoid mucking things up too badly

Continue reading

Intention, Attention, and Expectation in Remote Viewing

A discussion on a paper published by Joe McMoneagle and Edwin May on the possible role of Intention, Attention, and Expectation when remote viewing…

Instructor: Aphanas
Date: December 9th, 2006

* Discussion held in the #PSC_Annex room on (IRC)*

<Aphanas> (Discussion starting in the Annex about the paper posted here: if anyone’s interested…)

<john-afk> Just to check the article was only 8 pages long, right?

<Aphanas> *nods* That is correct.

<Jael> It wasn’t long, but the concepts are interesting.

<Kitsune> yeah

<john-afk> yes they are.

<Jael> Let’s officially start the discussion.

Continue reading

An Overview of Research in the Former Soviet Union

A discussion on current psionic research done in the former Soviet Union…

Instructor: Jael
Date: November 18, 2006

<Jael> Hopefully all of you have read the Overview of the Russian research studies.

[link: Overview of Current Parapsychology Research in the Former Soviet Union]

<RainTurtle> mmhmmmm

<[enne]> I -think- I understood most of it.

<[enne]> I have it open in the other window.

<Jael> Understanding everything about the research isn’t the important part. Being able to discuss it and learn from their methods is what this discussion will cover.

Continue reading

RV Protocol, Specific Methods, and Accuracy

Written by Aphanas – Summer 2006

I’ve been asked several questions recently about remote viewing (RV) protocol, specific methods, and how to determine accuracy. In this article, we’re going to cover some common misconceptions and questions that beginners have when starting to practice remote viewing.

Question #1:

Can I have some help understanding RVing? This is the first time I’ve practiced this kind of perceptive skill.

Answer #1:

I can certainly try to point you in a few directions that might be helpful. While I’m not an expert in the subject by a long shot, I’m passingly familiar with the basics.

First of all, there is a common misunderstanding that RV is a skill (like telekinesis or telepathy). It isn’t a skill at all, but rather a series of scientific protocols used when obtaining clairvoyant information. It was designed at SRI (Stanford Research Institute) in their Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, largely from some research conducted with Ingo Swann on gathering clairvoyant information. They needed a way to make the psionic information-gathering process more scientific, and allow it to be tested for accuracy.

RV protocols were developed to allow them to increase the accuracy of the information they were gathering psychically, and to determine how accurate a particular information-gathering session was. The RV protocols were set up this way because they were attempting to take a very vague and undefined area of human perception (clairvoyance), and make it more accurate by eliminating common problems that occurred when people tried to use clairvoyance (for instance, logically ‘guessing’ information about the target based on prior knowledge).

A good basic definition of RV would be (loosely paraphrased from Joe McMoneagle):

A scientific protocol used to produce correct information about a person, place, event, object, or concept that is located somewhere else in time/space, and about which the RVing individual has no existing information through conventional means.

There are three critical elements to all RV protocols:

  1. Everyone involved in seeking information about the target should have no existing knowledge of the target.
  2. There should be no known way for them to possibly gain information about the target other than through psionic means.
  3. There should be some way to verify the accuracy of the RV attempt objectively.

These three points are true of all the RV protocols (Coordinate Remote Viewing, Associative Remote Viewing, Outbounding, etc). For more detail on the definition of RV, and descriptions of some of the specific protocols, please take a look here:

Expanded RV Definition:

Types of RV protocol:

The three elements listed above tend to limit the ways one can refer to a target, and the kind of targets that one can use. For instance, because the RVer had to be kept “blind” to all target information beforehand, the folks that created the CRV protocol started using coordinates to refer to a target. They were originally geographic coordinates, but they found that it worked just as well if they made up a number/letter set and gave that to the RVer as the “target”.

RV targeting is also limited to things that can be confirmed objectively, even if they can’t be confirmed right now. So, a secret terrorist base’s location and layout would be a valid target, as would the physical structures of Europa (one of Jupiter’s moons), because both of them could eventually be objectively evaluated. For testing or practice purposes, a physical site or a photograph are good targets. Whether God exists, or which life philosophy is correct, would not be good targets because they can’t be objectively confirmed.

Question #2:

I’m kind of confused on how exactly you do it. What are the steps?

Answer #2:

The confusing bit is that technically, anything that conforms to the guidelines I gave in the first section qualifies as a valid RV protocol. You can use a crystal ball to collect target information if you want to, or heavy trancing, or just sitting there and playing with a yo-yo… as long as you have no information about the target beforehand, you’ve eliminated all other methods of accessing information on the target, and you can objectively confirm the results later.

With that said, there are quite a few different specific methods that have been developed, and are commonly used with established RV protocols. The most well known is probably the system developed for use by the SRI group called Coordinate Remote Viewing (CRV). In that version of the RV protocol, they start by having one person choose a target and assign coordinates to it. That person then gives the target coordinates (and only the coordinates), to the remote viewing team.

The remote viewing team usually consists of a remote viewer and a monitor. The RVer’s role is to actually find and document any information discovered about the target, usually by recording any perceived information in a specified manner on a notebook. The monitor’s role is usually to make sure that:

  1. The remote viewer is given the coordinates at the start of the remote viewing session.
  2. The remote viewer stays within protocol guidelines and what is called proper “structure” for the CRV protocol.
  3. The remote viewer is prompted on the next steps in the protocol if necessary.

Initially, the RVer normally works their way through a specified method of accessing information psionically. It starts with attempting to contact what is called the “signal line” for the target. This is based on a concept developed by the SRI group that all information about any subject was available by accessing something called “The Matrix” (of no relation to the later comic book/movies of the same name). When accessing the Matrix, the RVer had to find information on their specified target by tuning into its unique “signal line”, very similarly to the way one tunes into an FM station on the radio.

This process was commonly started by having the RVer mentally reach out toward their perceived target, while tapping the target coordinates written on their notepad with a pencil. They would then spontaneously draw a simple reaction, or ideogram, when they felt that they had contacted the signal line. That reaction would be followed by the RVer recording a series of impressions about the target.

This brings us to the rather important concept of “structure” within the CRV protocol. Structure is the notion that if we are very careful when we record information during an RV session, we can minimize the amount of “noise” or false data coming down the signal line from the target. The structure used in the CRV protocol has several parts:

  1. All data coming from the RV session is recorded, no matter how trivial or strange. Interpretation of the data, to make sense of it, is done later… so you don’t get to decide what is relevant data (and what isn’t) during the actual RV session. Data is commonly recorded by sketching impressions, writing down descriptive words, or even modeling the target in clay.
  2. The RVer will record relevant information that could affect the results of the session in one corner of the “session sheet” in their notebook. This will commonly include information such as the time of day, the date, the weather at the time, and any “inclemencies” that could affect their performance (i.e. – “I have a cold today,” “I’m very tired tonight,” “I’m stressed,” etc.).
  3. When using words to record data, the RVer tries to describe all of the impressions they receive in adjective form, to minimize interpretation of the data. So, when doing RV, if you receive an impression of a large, orangish fruit that looks rather like a pumpkin, rather than writing down the noun “pumpkin”, you would write the adjectives “large,” “orangish,” and “fruitlike”. That way, when reviewing the data later, if the target turns out to be a buttercup squash, you have not skewed the data by assuming what the large, orangish, fruitlike item actually was.
  4. If a noun such as “pumpkin” does pop into your head, you write down the word and then label it as “AOL” (Analytical Overlay). That means your conscious mind was insisting on interpreting the data for you, so you wrote down its suggestion, but noted that it was likely an analysis of the data, rather than a direct description of what was coming down the signal line. It is common to take a break for a few moments when that happens, and record that on the session sheet as an “AOL break”.
  5. After the initial reaction and descriptions from the signal line, there are a series of additional steps taken to re-contact the signal line and pull additional data from it. These are organized in the CRV protocol into a series of “stages” during the RV session (Stage I – Ideogram Drawing and Major Impressions, Stage II – Sensory Data & Overall Dimensions, Stage III – Aesthetic Impact of the Target, Stage IV – Categorizing Data from the Target, etc.).

For more information on the details of how structure works in a CRV session, I’d recommend taking a look at the online version of SRI’s CRV Manual.

CRV Manual from SRI:

As you can see, the CRV process is rather complicated. The idea was that by systematizing the methods for collecting and recording clairvoyant data, accuracy could be increased.

Question #3:

Well, I guess a better question is that I’m not too sure if the things I’m sensing are actual perceptions or not. Any help you can give me?

Answer #3:

To answer the question of how to tell if the stuff you’re sensing is actual perception or not… it is perception by definition (because you are sensing/perceiving it). Therefore, you should be recording it, according to RV protocol standards. If you’re asking how to tell if your perceptions are accurate, that’s a bit harder. There is currently no established way to judge if your perceptions are accurate while actually receiving clairvoyant information. That’s why the RV protocols were developed in the first place.

There are some things you can do that will help accuracy. If you make sure that you are recording word impressions in adjective form, that process will help keep you from skewing the real data with your conscious mind’s interpretation of the data. Sketching your target data can also be helpful, as the mental process for drawing is usually less analytical than translating the data into words (and so less likely to result in AOL errors). Ultimately, however, the only way to tell if your perceptions are accurate is to record them and then verify them (principle #3 for all RV protocols).

Even the people acknowledged as the best in the world at RV only have an average 65% accuracy rate. That’s far above chance, but it’s not perfect. Nor are normal perceptions (just ask five people at the scene of an accident “what happened?”, and you’ll have that demonstrated). RV can still be quite useful for a number of applications even with that limited accuracy rate. Also, over time one can start to acquire a sense for when one is “on target” with an attempt – though most of that sense may come from judging how well you’ve kept in protocol, so that you’re not distorting the data coming to you from the target.

That covers our first three basic questions on the topic of remote viewing. I hope what I’ve outlined makes sense, and further questions are welcome at any time. If you’d like to do further reading on RV protocols, specific methods, or increasing accuracy, I would recommend starting with the sources listed below.



Suggested Reading:

In Print
McMoneagle, Joseph. Remote Viewing Secrets: A Handbook. Hampton Roads Publishing Company. Charlottesville, VA. 2000. (ISBN: 1-57174-159-3)

On the Web
PJ’s Firedocs RV Collection

SRI’s CRV Manual

Joe McMoneagle’s website

Ingo Swann’s “Real Story of Remote Viewing”

SRI’s Cognitive Sciences Laboratory

Empathy: What it is, what it is not, and what to do about it

Written by Jael – Summer 2006

Note: This was originally a post in PsiPog’s forum and was written in response to some misconceptions about psionic empathy. Because it was written for PsiPog members, PsiPog references were used. I have added PSC links in brackets.

The area of empathy seems to have some misunderstandings running rampant here. Hopefully this post will help clarify psionic empathy and what you can do about it if it is bothering you.

First, I would like to define terms. Empathy has two definitions according to

  1. Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives.
  2. The attribution of one’s own feelings to an object.

Please note that even though these are defining non-psionic empathy, in (1) it is identification with an outsider, and in (2) it is not feeling specifically, but rather attribution of your feelings onto someone or something else.

In the articles section of PsiPog, the subtitle for the empathy articles is “Sensing the emotions of others, and dealing with those emotions.” Note that this refers to emotions coming from outside of yourself.

In addition, I would like to quote from Rainsong/RainTurtle’s seminar on empathy[PSC Empathy Section]

Rainsong/RainTurtle wrote:
[20:40] <.RainTurtle> There are two basic meanings for the word “empathy”, and several variants within each.
[20:41] <.RainTurtle> The first is a psychological phenomenon, reacting to the expressed or assumed situation of another person, “feeling for them”,….very like “sympathy” in rough terms
[20:41] <.RainTurtle> Not being a Psychologist, I am not going to be lecturing on Psychological Empathy, tonight….
[20:43] <.RainTurtle> Instead, we come to the second meaning: “the telepathic perception of another person’s emotions”. Depending on the variant of the definition which you happen to favour, this may also extend to influencing the emotions of other people, in addition to sensing same

The particular section of the forum and indeed the articles in the article section address the psionic empathy RainTurtle mentions in her second definition. To reiterate, psychological empathy is not the type of empathy intended to be under discussion in this area of the forum.

Some things that empathy is NOT:

  • managed or mismanaged feelings about something occurring inside yourself (upset, happy, sad, etc with/for family members, friends, enemies, etc)
  • emotions prompted by movies, music, or past memories
  • something you can stop (outside of shielding)

Here are some ideas about what to do when you experience psionic empathy or think you might be experiencing psionic empathy.

Ground and center

I personally like Rainsong/RainTurtle’s description of grounding and centering in her article ‘Normal’ Uses for Unusual Skills found in the articles site. She is describing grounding before taking an exam, but points out that grounding is useful in other situations as well.

Rainsong/RainTurtle wrote:
Put your feet flat on the floor, and your hands flat on the desk or chair. Close your eyes. Take a nice deep breath. Now focus on the excess energy and the excess emotion, and send them down your arms and out through the palms of your hands. It may simplify matters to visualize the energy and emotion being sent as being water or sand flowing along pipes. In any case, don’t force it out; just let it flow nice and easily. The entire procedure takes less than a minute and may be repeated as needed.

After grounding and centering, it is often immensely easier to tell if you are receiving telepathic input in the form of empathy or if you are actually the one with the feelings in question. As an example, on the anniversary of my sister-in-law’s death, I started feeling a mix of strong emotions halfway through the day. After grounding/centering, I realised not only what day it was, but that my brother was just starting his day (we live several time zones apart). In this example, I was both feeling my own feelings as well as his. I adjusted my shield to send comfort to my brother while blocking his feelings from me. While not a great day, it was manageable. Had I had to deal with both my emotions and his, I’m not sure how well it would have gone.


A shield is simply something that blocks incoming signals. The best shield for you to use is the one that works. What works for one person might be useless to someone else. Read what you can about shielding, create shields, and have people scan them and help you test them. Not only does it give you feedback, it’s good practice for all parties involved. The articles section is a good place to start for learning more about shields. [PSC Shield Section]

When testing your shields, don’t describe your shield to the person scanning before hand. The feedback you can rely on is the feedback that doesn’t have ‘frontloaded’ information. The information provided to you can verify that your shield is working properly, as well as give you feedback about what other people might experience when scanning your shield. For example, if you create a hedge shield and they can’t find you, you might have made it correctly. However, you might also have chosen a partner that has difficulty finding people. To check this, ask them to rescan for you, after taking down the shield. Ideally, you wouldn’t mention to them that you did so. If they rescan and find you, you have confirmed that your hedge shield works. Another fun thing to do is put a construct somewhere on your shield/field. That is an additional boost for both you and the scanner when those are verified. “This is odd… I think I’ve found you, but it seems like you have a purple dinosaur on your shoulder.”


Grounding, centering, and shielding are the most useful things you can do to help regain control of incoming signals. Occasionally, empathy will result in confused feelings inside yourself. For example, you might feel upset at the store for an ‘unexplained’ reason, only to discover a couple arguing close by (depending on the argument and your sensitivity, they could be outside the store). Even after putting up a shield, the chemicals released in the brain when _you_ are upset are still floating around in your body. The body doesn’t differentiate between your emotions and someone else’s. Grounding and centering again can be helpful, but you might need to use some of your personal tricks to deal with any leftover feelings of anger before you feel ‘yourself’ again.

Remember: If you are personally going through a hard time, realise this and be honest with yourself. Assuming you are an empath, you are still empathetic during these times, but recognising when they are ‘your’ feelings as opposed to ‘someone else’s’ feelings is harder during rough sections of life. During these times, I attempt to be even more diligent with shielding. Why make things harder on myself by being lazy? This increases the likelihood that the feelings I am experiencing are mine and need to be addressed. Therefore, I assume that the feelings are mine and deal with them (or attempt to deal with them) appropriately.

I hope this information is helpful in understanding what empathy is and what it is not, as well as how to deal with it.

Take care,


Orgotek Conference: Messing With Electronics and Magnetism

Instructor: RainTurtle
Date: August 4, 2004 (Wednesday)

<Aphanas> Hi, Spot

<RainTurtle> Good evening, ladies and gentlement. Welcome to another seminar in our series of Aeon Trinity Psi-Order conferences

* Bobrobyn likes the name

<RainTurtle> (Aeon) Trinity is a role-playing game about psionics, but the (fictional) psi-orders make a convenient way to subdivide the real-world psionic abilities

<RainTurtle> Tonight, we have the Orgotek Conference

<RainTurtle> In the Trinity gameworld, Orgotek is both a psi-Order and a megacorporation, based in North America

<RainTurtle> Their psionic activities deal with electricity, electronics, magnetism, and light.

<RainTurtle> The typical Orgotek character is the Computer Geek par Excellence.

* Aodh grins

<RainTurtle> Our topic, therefore, is “messing about with electronics and magnetism”

Continue reading

NORCA Seminar: Control & Alteration of the Physical Body

Instructor: Rainsong
Date: July 28, 2004 (Wednesday)

RainTurtle Good evening, ladies and gentlemen

* Aodh notices a crowd applausing

Aphanas Good evening, Rain.

Aodh Good evening =D

RainTurtle Welcome to another in the series of Trinity psi-Order conferences

Jael Good evening 🙂

RainTurtle Tonight, we have the conference of the Norca

RainTurtle The NORCA are, of course, a fictional psi-Order of the Aeon Trinity gameworld

RainTurtle There should be a cedille under the C, and it is pronounced nor-SAH.

RainTurtle This (fictional) South American organisation has a talent for the control and alteration of their own bodies…masters of disguise

RainTurtle Our topic this evening is restricted to the biofeedback-like “control” part of the equation.

Continue reading

SQL – Database Concepts/Overview

Instructor: Dan
Date: June 16, 2004 (Wednesday)

<Dan> Ladies and gentleman (and you too bot), tonight will be a survey seminar.

<Dan> Since you all know the “normal” rules, I won’t repeat them.

* Dan is now known as CrazyTeacher

<CrazyTeacher> So – a little history to get us started.

<CrazyTeacher> Anybody know how long we’ve had these things called “computers” ?

Continue reading