Back around early Fall of 1998 — holy cow! Ten years ago exactly! — when I was still very ignorant about RV (that is to say, I was a walking encyclopedia about what the experts selling training in the field taught, which is nothing like my models and understanding of things now…) I had a rather unusual experience.
I was in the middle of an RV session when I momentarily ‘spaced out’ and then suddenly realized that I could hear/feel a whole big group of people talking, arguing together — inside me. They were all me. All part of me.
This came as other “spontaneous psi” tends to come to me — a certain category of it, anyway — where I realize that I am seeing or hearing something but
(a) somewhat after it’s already been going on, and
(b) it is not really coming through my eyes/ears though I interpret it that way, and
(c) although I call it ‘seeing’ or ‘hearing’ there is actually a lot of other kinds of information coming through, a more wholistic ‘understanding’, than the physical sense would have. Much like in a dream, I may know past, future, relationships, situations, ‘potentials’, and more, related to what I’m perceiving.
In pure astonishment, I observed this group. It was a large group of people, all separate identities, and yet I understood that they were all “part of what makes up the energy I think of as me”. They were having a debate.
The debate was about a piece of data — of energy — for my RV session. They were debating “who got to give it to me.” There was the understanding that whomever gave it to me, there was some other things involved. They were ‘touching my attention’ and so were getting some energy from me when that happened. They were ‘expressing through me’ and so were getting to express/vent some of their own energy. There was a huge sense of “political competition” between them in vying for this. We were all part of the “larger entity”.
I clearly sensed male and female all over. One man was insisting that he should do it because he is usually the one who does it and I expect that. Another man was insisting that no, HE should do it because he is far more expert on this particular kind of energy (of the target data).
A woman was emotionally insisting — sounding very upset — that she should get to do it because she almost never got to do anything with me and she really needed to. I had the clear understanding at that moment that if she were the one to give me the energy, it would be completely wrong in my world. Her “need to express” means her “translation” of that energy and her “presentation” of that energy would come through to me hugely affected by–carrying–that emotional energy that she so needed to communicate and express. I realized that I definitely did not want her giving me RV data, but also, that this was some part of myself that (in ordinary life) I unfairly ignore, repress, etc.
It occurred to me that when we say things like, “… and I got to express a part of me that really needed an outlet when I took up painting” or whatever, that this might be far more literal than we realize.
The experience ended. I was baffled, and I thought about this for quite awhile. I did not attribute this to session data — I did not doubt it — I felt implicitly this was something real and merely an ‘insight’ into a degree of ‘internal affairs’ that I had never had before.
On thinking one night, later, about how it was like social-politics, my brain made an association: Jane Roberts had a book called “PSYCHIC POLITICS.” I didn’t remember if I’d read it or what it was about but certainly the Seth work touched on “Aspects” and that’s what this felt like.
I hunted it down and sat down to read. It amounted to the same concept/theory. That we think of ourselves as a single entity but really we are an enormously complex, “conglomerate” blend of identities operating under a single face/body/focus. That our “surface personality” is a custom and varying %/ratio of various individual identity/focuses, ever-shifting, but with common patterns. And that those inner identities work with each other — just like people do — and a great deal of social politics and competition and so on was involved.
I had another experience or two with the ‘perception’ of the ‘psychic politics’ inside me, later. I might have had more, but I was so emotionally enraged about the remote viewing field and my experiences with people at that point, that I really couldn’t view; even thinking of the term “RV” made my stomach hurt and made me angry and dark. So I didn’t explore this much during the era when I seemed most likely to perceive that dynamic.
Many years later, I came up with an approach during RV that I called “Aspect RV.” My theory was that first, if there were some aspects better qualified than others to be the ones handing me the data, I wanted to call those. But since they apparently specialized in different kinds of energy, then I wanted to call the one appropriate. But if I was doubleblind, I didn’t know. So instead, I would call to parts of me — custom created by some mix of identity-energies for my call, I was sure — and ask it what it thought or got from the target, and then go to another.
So for example, I would ask the architect, priest, CEO, songwriter, mother, policeman, rock star, etc. and it was just fascinating. It did seem to be the case that if the target were a building or ‘construction’ for example, that I’d be more likely to get data from an aspect geared to that. But they wouldn’t give me emotional, conceptual stuff, so I’d ask for a different aspect for that. Since I knew the framework of what I was asking for, I could compare the data of say, a songwriter and architect, policeman and priest, and consider that data ‘from the vantage point of’ that kind of energy.
Eventually I opened it more and would say, “who volunteers to give me info?” and I would get a lot of “hands in the air” sense. I would pick one, and insist that they give me a name or I would give them a name based on how I sensed their energy — that way, in the future, if I wanted to ask for this particular blend of aspect-energy, I could do so. (This usually came out to some silly name, like ‘people-girl’ or ‘bouncy-blue’.) Then I would get data from them. On feedback, I would know how well they had done (or not).
So if they wanted my attention again in the future, they needed to be as accurate-for-my-reality in their presentation of that to me as possible.
You might say that I used remote viewing to introduce a “free market” to my inner conglomerate. 🙂 Now there was competition with market-driven result!
Eventually I realized that my aspect requests could be anything. I could request the aspects best for that target (though my results with that were not as good as I hoped frankly), or I could request MY aspect of ‘abraham lincoln’ and get energy about the target “through that perspective”. If I sensed a target related to war or military, I could ask for “my aspect of General MacArthur” or whatever, trusting that this unique combination of energies inside me would be well suited to describing the target. (You might ask, how those inner energies know what combination to provide to best mirror MacArthur? ‘Cause everything IS and they’re psychic, of course! ;-))
“How” I got info seemed to depend on the aspect. For example, many of them would “act out” energy like charades, while another might give me a visual or conceptual of something. I gradually came to suspect that this was a matter of what they could provide directly based on their own energetic pattern. When they couldn’t, I got charades, or analogies. When they could, I would actually see or hear or experience the target in some fashion. And some might be able to get something like say, kinesthetics, but not some other aspect. I had one aspect that I called black-humor-me that felt distinctly… alien. It was fascinating yet deeply disturbing. When I got data from that source, I felt specifically not-human. I thought of humans as “other”.
I started seriously wondering if the seemingly random nature of the type of data I get and the way it comes through — both total variables — were actually due to the combination of the target detail and the aspect of me that was bringing this through to me. In other words, that even if the target energy or pattern or whatever was clear in me at some very core point, that the process of getting it “through my body and to my mind” seemed to be going “through” a whole group of aspects, all of whom competed to be the one to have that communication with the surface-me and that expression of their own energy as part of it. The variety of the aspects combined with the variety of elements in a target, resulted in the process — what data came, or didn’t, how it came, whether it connected to other data, etc. — seeming to be bewilderingly random, on my surface.
But it wasn’t really random, I realized; it was merely uncontrolled. This made me laugh, because the term ‘controlled’ remote viewing is actually a descriptive phrase that applies to the session process (it’s also used as a method-label, but in english terms it is more than that). But it definitely has never been used to relate to “controlling the myriad identities inside you that translate information for you”, and that theory itself is about as far-out as they come I suppose.
I’ve talked about this (Aspect RV) off and on over the last six years online. I’ve experimented with it off and on. I have had very good results with it, but it’s one of those subjects that is actually so complex that I feel like I’d need to experiment for the next century to really have a clue what’s going on.
I have resisted it fiercely in cycles because I struggle to “keep things simple” in RV, which in many respects is just so important — that things be as ‘clean’ as possible. Usually when someone has a theory about almost anything, it is just adding complexity that makes things less clear not more. But no matter what my intellectual self thought about it, the experience of “being a conglomerate of identities” happens — in a thousand different ways actually — regardless.
I had an epiphany today. But it relates to Aspect RV and Archetype RV and Archetype Meditations and so I have to document those things first as edu, and THEN talk about this morning’s insight.