part 4 of 4

(This was actually written first and a day before. All this stuff is just me and my subconscious, probably I just had a bunch of stuff that needed venting for some reason. But this section seemed more me and less in the flow than the others.)

The way in which we think about psychic functioning profoundly affects the functioning itself. Although there is innate access both through physical body and other levels of one’s being to “information,” getting the information to recorded in the outerworlds involves a great deal of processing on several levels.

That processing serves for translation, reduction or compression, conversion into sensory-forms (e.g. words), and then communication (a complex filtering process all its own). The belief systems of the viewer will shape this greatly and in more than one way.

One example of the “blurred” way in which our language lends confusion instead of clarity to this process is regarding the nature of information itself.

Fundamentally all data is ‘symbolic.’ Whether it appears to be literal, symbolic, or abstracted, this is a labeling system we apply based on evaluation of the end-result during comparison to feedback. But this should not be mistaken for something which is inherent in the energy itself. It is a belief about the information, not the information.

All data is symbolic because everything is symbolic. Our car, house, bed and even the people around us are merely symbols our mind creates to ‘interpret’ energy, drastically filtered by physiology and futher filtered by culture and then further ‘creatively distorted’ by elements of our individuality.

There is no significant difference between a dream-symbol of a car that you decide represents your body, and the dream-symbol of a car that is sitting in your driveway. They are both energy, they are both perceived as-translated through you in various ways, and they both appear to be, as an end-result, “a car.” The primary difference to you is that one is usable only in the outerworlds, and the other is usable only in the interworlds. The temporal longevity and creative flexibility of the “forms” will differ based on the environ of the worlds they are created within.

A human or a skyscraper is no less a symbol than a giant red cube or a ‘walking spiky green cone.’ Our culture has come to be accustomed to the symbols so we label them. We don’t say, “That is a rolling blue symbol,” we say, “That is a blue car.” The label “embeds” a variety of assumed information. But give us something we do not recognize and label already, such as a unique crop circle in a field, or some geometry hovering in the sky, or something similar in creative artwork like a painting, and immediately we recognize: “That is a symbol.”

It is no more a symbol than a dog or the tree in the yard. It is the pre-existing “bias of familiarity” which leads us to “forget” that our labels do not un-make a symbol, nor do they represent more than the tiniest fraction of that symbol’s inherent truth/meaning/energy, merely because they present a handle of familiarity.

Every ‘thing’ (and that which is not “a noun” as well) is a ‘symbolic encapsulation of energy.’ This can include the energy of concept, time, space, geometry, etc. What we perceive in the outerworlds is the tip of the iceberg so to speak: a tiny percentage of the “wholism” of the symbol. For example, for a vehicle, we may see a part of the form, and a part of the meaning, and these combine for us into a recognizable symbol-label of “car.”

But there is vastly more information about the form, even that part of which is within the frequency-bandwidth of the outerworlds, than we perceive or are aware of when we see it. We have the ability to go through some of that in detail, and a mechanic likely has more of this information mostly-under the surface level of thought when seeing a car. He may not be grasping the full symbolic information inherent in a turbine engine but he is at least more aware of its basics and its presence in the car. But it is the “shallow surface topography” we generally perceive and “mean” when we create such labels in language.

For concept, it is the same: even in the outerworlds the concept has many facets, not just ‘functional transportation’ but freedom and status and virility as just a few of the (many) others, and all of this energy is inherently a part of this symbol. (There is also a great deal of concept inherent within the details of form, including the elements of everything from the engine to the wheels to the electronic system to the ‘dynamics’ of all these things and their interaction, included.)

So when we see “a car” we are only “perceiving” a very tiny fraction of the energy of that symbol. We have mistakenly come to believe that our “labels designed for the surface percentage we recognize” are the thing itself: we have come to believe the two-dimensional map on paper or word in our head is in fact the rich multi-dimensional territory.

But it is not only that our map of Africa does not show us the “true landscape” for example. It also doesn’t show us the vast and complex array of energy that makes up the geography and topography, and all the awareness that is present in the region, from minerals to botany to animals to people, and the history and future of all of that which is equally a part of it all, and even the perception-“OF”-it by others and interaction which is also an inherent part of its energy.

But ‘Africa,’ including any specific time-space-concept nexus within that region that we might call a remote viewing ‘target’ (such as “the assassination of Mr. J which occurred at the corner of 3rd and Q streets at 4:15pm on June 17, 1979”) is a symbol. And it inherently contains all the energy of that symbol.

But there is more: it harmonically contains the energy of the larger context from which that target is defined, and this is a rather vast amount: not just that street corner in the target, but the larger ‘human-abstractly-labeled-territory’ associated with it (‘Africa’ and ‘Third World Countries’ and so on), all ‘street corners’ and ‘similar human interaction’ and more.

Wrapped around and ‘through’ all this, creating the framework of definition which places that innate energy into a secondary artform, is the energy of tasking-context, yet another complex symbol, the “reasoning, interest, need, expectation” which has framed the tasking, and the whole viewer-context and its many symbolic energies as well (and secondary creative-complexes of energy related to the relationship of target and tasker, target and viewer, tasker and viewer, reason for viewing, and more).

When a target is ‘created’ by intent, the target becomes an archetype: a symbol. It becomes an art-form just like the ‘thing’ we think we are targeting already is; a secondary artform which is our “variation on the theme” of the original song, the original symbol. All ‘forms and dynamics’ are symbols, condensed ‘creatively-interpreted’ icons of energy. All events and relationships are also symbols, their cohesiveness simply a different kind of grouping than that for nouns.

Moreover, we do not ‘view’ even those symbols anyway: we view our creative-perception (in both experience and result) of the secondary art form, the next-generation symbol you might say, that tasker/system/viewer have made (or will make) from the sponsoring-symbol (such as the space/time/event/identity nexus we call the target).

We do not view ‘literal, symbolic or abstract’ things and provide literal, symbolic or abstract data because there is no such thing in either case: it is all symbolic. Using these words to mean ‘how well our symbolic communication matches the surface-label of the secondary symbol we call the target’ can be somewhat misleading to the mind, as it subtly creates the belief system that the energy itself, whether seemingly-separate (such as ‘inherent in the target’) or seemingly-within (such as ‘the data we perceived and recorded’) is different. But there is no difference.

One complication of sorts is that information combines just as (and somewhat for the same reasons) atoms do. Form and information are perspectives on the same underlying thing, and these are merely properties of the energy (which is itself a property of awareness/meaning): they are not the definition, they are symbols themselves. Symbols, whether seemingly raw elements or things-in-entirety, combine.

Some will change form when combined, just as combining two atoms will create a third, new molecule. Some will maintain their own integrity. Some will be affected by the combined dynamics (water or air + time affects certain minerals as they oxidize or rust). Some targets (symbols) no matter how specific will invoke sub-harmonies caused by combinations of one or more ‘groups of energy’ that combine within them, such as ‘Africa and violence’ or ‘poverty and the death of the man who crusaded to save the poor’ or ‘street corners and drive-by shootings’ and so on.

Evaluating feedback compared to session shows us the discrepancy between our labels (our interpretive evaluation of the art we call “the target,” or you might say ‘our beliefs about the target’) and our internal symbols (our understanding of what we ‘sensed’ in session, or you might say ‘our experience‘).

It also tells us about the ‘creative-art-symbol-target’ itself (or you might say, ‘the actual composition of the symbol [its IS-ness], regardless of what we or anyone else think was intended or ‘should’ be its composition), and our recording (or you could say, our communication as a creative process all its own, related to but separate from the experiential matter of perceiving the information).

These four things are all evident to varying degrees with a session and feedback to compare–although knowing of tasker, tasking context, viewer, and any communications structure (e.g. methodology) obviously helps put some things into context. Reviewing past sessions in a somewhat altered state with request for “insight” can be very useful.

When we ask ourselves as a viewer to describe a target, which is in turn the creative artform symbol of the tasker (whether the tasker is specifically choosing it, choosing only what will lead to it, or whether the tasker is the viewer “retroactively,” based upon a ‘seemingly random’ selection after the session itself), we are innately invoking access to vastly more potential-information than we can imagine. More than libraries full.

And yet our ideal in this work is to provide several pages of what we would call literal data or to be more precise, “symbolic data which best matches our interpretation of the tiny surface percentage of label-information we have assigned to the symbol of the art form which was built to be a target based on an arbitrary collection of underlying energy of the interworlds AS-Reflected in the outerworlds.”

In other words, a target that is a vehicle (to keep this simple) could involve volumes of accurate data regarding everything from the dynamics of motion to the functionality and even metaphysics of a turbine engine, but this is not what is being requested. Our surface “labels” for the symbols, which are such a tiny percentage of any symbol, are what most viewing is looking for. A session’s tasker or viewer or user may appreciate “some” concept — they may like “military” or “used for transporting tools” for example. But they are looking for an incredibly small amount of that. Mostly, they want to know that it was a late 1970s covered jeep that was painted olive green. They do not care about the vast amount of information inherent in the vehicle in so many ways. (If the vehicle was part of an ‘event’ in a target, let alone one with identities involved, the inherent information in the symbol of the ‘target’ expands exponentially, even astronomically, in scope.)

Everyone has innate access to all-that-is. The element of variance we see such as in viewing (and really, even perception of personal reality) is in the sheer quantity and complexity of information which is inherent in every symbol, and exponentially inherent in every inter-action.

Nearly any ‘data’ is somewhere within the art-form symbol of the target, inherently, whether directly or indirectly (and whether as related to the origin-symbol on which the target-art is based, or as related to the tasker, viewer, or other contributing sources of creative interaction or information). This is somewhat irrelevant to the desired end-result part of the equation, since there would be no visible difference between random information or free-association and target data if one were merely asking that the data received be “part of the target” — the symbol(s) used for this art work contain far too much information inherently for that to be any useful definition.

In the case of RV’s goals, the question is not whether humans have access to information (or ‘psi’ as some call it); this is a given. The question is whether the combination of origin-symbol, tasker, tasker’s art-form secondary symbol “the target,” viewer, viewer’s relationship with both the target and the tasker (e.g. ignoring tasker’s art-form secondary version and aiming for the origin-energy as defined by eventual feedback or tasking disclosure, versus ‘riding the intent’ of the tasker), etc. can result in session data that “closely matches the surface-labels we apply to such symbols.”

So when we say, “the target is a vehicle” or “the target is event-X,” we are not simply asking for information about that. That could be three tomes of information none of which is relevant to what we want. Describing a turbine engine or an electrical system would be just as accurate as information on a vehicle as describing it as a green truck. But all we really want are the surface-label information (which may at times include detailed physical composition), and a very minimal amount of ‘primary label/culture-associated information related to function and concept.’

The data we get often makes it clear that our “internal addressing” is to the “symbol.” This is natural as this is how we function as part of the interworlds, regardless of the fact that we also happen to be functioning on the surface canvas-outer-worlds as well. It also often makes clear that the tasker and/or viewer’s definition of the target is the “symbol.” Which is both the secondary art form, and an utterly vast amount of information.

And then it makes clear that our stated-intent and feedback are not the symbol but are the bare fraction of energy which functions as our visible-surface and cultural-labeling of the symbol. These are not the same thing.

One reason many sessions and viewers fail to ‘describe the target’ is because we are not accurately delineating, in the mind of the tasker (interpretive artist based on origin-symbols), the viewer (interpretive artist for the tasker’s art), or the evaluator (anyone’s interpretation of the data/feedback comparison), what the “target” is actually supposed to be.

This is like the joke in software programming that says customers get “just what they ask for but not what they want.”

Now let us say we are considering an art form which is “a target.” (Targets are a creative art form, as much or moreso as any painting.) This is a collection of energy which excludes nearly the entire universe ‘except’ that collection. It is a creative composition based on what a tasker believes to be real or possible and desires, and/or based on what ‘feedback’ demonstrates (directly or indirectly) to be present or likely, creatively applied to the perception of something(s)-that-assumedly-is. (The viewer’s interpretion is yet another step of creative perception, interpretation, and process, beyond that.)

We are speaking here about the awareness that comprises the universe which is, for this focus, condensed into the actual ‘forms and dynamics’ which make up nouns, events and relationships, etc. In short, this is all merely “information:” it is all present as part of the interworlds (where both target definition and viewing are going on. This may differ, from slightly to very, compared to its reflection in the outerworlds, mind you).

So how do we as taskers or viewers “force to attention” the miniscule percentage of information in the tasking art form which reflects just the ‘surface labels and a tiny bit more’?

What is fundamentally at focus? Awareness. What is a primary Is-ness of awareness? Meaning. Not meaning as in concept (that is part of form/dynamics much farther down the line of manifestation) but meaning as in ‘Truth,’ sensed primally within (and accessed directly through) all forms of consciousness, including human identities.

So when you have a giant conglomerate of information — the symbol which is the target — which is all otherwise equal, how do you provide “emphasis” to “what tiny fraction of this matters?”

The art of tasking becomes the topography of truth. Much like mountains are simply a greater collection of energy which we call the mass of rock, and are more visible in the landscape as a result, as interworld artists we can provide “depth and emphasis” to certain parts of our pictures by creating ‘more thickly layered paint’, to stay with the art analogy, than elsewhere. As taskers (or even as viewers using feedback for tasking definition), we “increase the meaning inherent” in certain ‘surface elements’ (some of which may be concepts or details) of an intended target.

Can we define or increase meaning? Yes, that is actually where we have the most power, not the least. We can better control the assignment of meaning than we can the exclusion of what we don’t think defines the target. Everything we contribute or perceive, create or receive, in/of the interworlds (which is all there is aside from Truth(tm) and ‘outerworld’ physical reality), is powerfully affected by ‘meaning’ — by Truth in the fundamental nature of what Is, but also by Truth in our genuine intent to align ourselves with Truth and what Is.

Every target that we create is to a degree nothing but our subjective assignment of meaning: as a tasker we make the target a building because we do not assign the same degree of meaning to the lightpost outside it. An experienced viewer will not either (unless a bomb that blew up the building was in fact attached the light post for example…).

A new viewer may be so delighted for their internal experience to be reflected in feedback they may choose any information from the giant conglomerate of ‘target’ which allows them to get that validation–even if it is the trivial lightpost, or, even if the information is perceived as wrong by feedback but which may validate them via intellectual or social rapport with someone else (tasker’s expectations, other viewers, later evaluator comments, etc.). We view to validation, as I have often said, which makes the process and results a lot more complex to figure out when social dynamics are involved.

As individuals we all have filters and responses related to social and peer interaction. Whenever that element is involved with viewing, it has a significant effect on the outcome. Individuals who are unusually willing to stand alone apart from (even when within) the peer environment may be more likely to be truly aligned with intent for Truth than the validation element. You might say that all forms of viewer-validation that are not ‘inner recognition of truth or outer recognition of match to feedback/stated-intent’ are in fact “conflicts of interest” with viewing’s officially desired outcome.

So how do we define or increase meaning? The same way we do it naturally, instinctively, except in this case we are doing so intentionally and carefully. We allow our mind as tasker to span the scope of the art symbol we have created, and we intentionally consider the data (if we already have feedback) or the potential kind of data (if we don’t) or “whatever data answers our question” (we are then functioning as-pre-viewer for the creation of the task, you might say, which is very often the case but this is usually unrecognized), which we feel will be most meaningful.

We intentionally pull from source and pour energy into that the same way we do when channeling energy for other purposes such as healing.

Then we then select “the rest” of what is inherently part of the target, and intentionally reduce the energy there, as if reducing the opacity of a graphic image on a white background so that it becomes more transparent, less vivid.

Then we add what I have called emotional sequencing in the past, a planned series of certain emotions (chosen not only for their own qualities but their sequence), which we imagine “pouring into” the “meaningful topography” of our artform target, as if we are creating the meaning-version of mountain ranges and lightning storms within that “range of frequency which would hold information of type-X,” and we are then adding our emotion “like a soundtrack” to add depth just to those areas.

Some viewers may innately do this without trying and regardless of tasker. They are usually going to seem like better viewers than others. However this can be practiced and done as tasker, as viewer, and in both roles on the same target when tasking is done retroactively.

One might recognize that this is creating a thoughtform, but of course all tasking is already creating a thoughtform. Targets are symbolic artworks, identities, archetypes of their own — not anything surface-literal. There is no such thing as anything literal except in the outerworlds (which is not where/how any of this, except surface-origin and feedback, takes place). So this definition is not new.

But making the effort to increase meaning (truth) in ‘what matters’ from the tasker/viewer standpoint, and to ‘decrease meaning/energy/attention’ in everything-else, and then adding the creative emotion to the ‘meaningful’ parts, as well as recognizing the symbolic nature of reality and the vastly broader collection of energy inherent in the ‘symbols’ we identify by simple labels, this is an approach to tasking I have not done but as I write it seems like something to experiment with.

end of part 4 of 4

Philosophy that writes itself: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4