My archmeds for remote viewing have expanded in depth but contracted in time and effort. I have begun to skip the majority of the archmed process altogether. I simply imagine myself in ‘my space’ which is just for archetypes of targets, I imagine Inner Guide (IG) introducing me to a human-form archetype which is the summation of energy of the target, I am nice to it for a moment, and then we allow IG to “weave us together.” Then in this merged state I begin the session. It doesn’t make more than about 30 seconds to get there.
When the session is done, I keep the target merged with me to review feedback, write out my notes, etc. Then I tell IG we are ready to be “unwoven” from each other. I take a few breaths as I imagine this and feel the shift in my awareness. Then I do a brief reality med (impossible to describe in so short a space) to heal, strengthen, and sometimes mutate, aspects of myself that might have some trouble with the process I just experienced.
If I don’t set a time limit on this process, I refer to it as protocol ArchNT, for “Remote Viewing, planned session, optional precognitive to target generation, worked soloblind, archetype-RV methodology, no time limit (nt).”
In my mental model, I AM the target, and it is ‘of me’. Here’s a model you might recognize. If you are colorblind you should see ’70’ in this pic. If you have normal vision you should see ’29’. Well in my mental model of ‘myself’ as a huge conglomerate of energy, focused under one umbrella-of-intent, think of the whole circle of dots as “me”. The target is “in” me, because everything is; I AM.
So when its dots light up, they become something perceivable; overall, it’s the archetype of the target. Any one of those dots you might think of as some major aspect of the target like a mountain or machine or whatever. All its dots added together, all its energy, the sum-total of ‘the target’, is the number we perceive.
So it’s a matter of interacting with myself, even though I am using as a model, a framework of interacting with the target. As I’ve written before, I think of Remote Viewing like, “If you could find it within yourself…” — literally.
My sessions have gradually moved to three main ‘sections’.
- There is TL, for “target lead.” I imagine us merged as the inquirers, and merged as the target, and I say, “Tell me what you think matters; tell me what you want me to know.” And I collect a little data like that.
- Then I note VL, for “viewer lead.” And I ask and inquire and give whatever prompts, movement directives, etc. make my heart happy (this is the “normal” framework of remote viewing).
- Then I note JV, for “joint venture.” And WE ask and inquire of US, what is most important and worth knowing and experiencing about this target.
Those 3 steps are the session. I can go through them in a few cycles (repeat) if I wish. Whether I bother, and how much data I collect for each section, is just based on how I feel and how well it seems to be working and how much time I have etc.
So far, I don’t see anything notable concerning the difference between the stages. They have all had good data and problem data, though since my big official COMMITTMENT to Remote Viewing (see the Red Cairo blog), things have gone pretty well.
I do see that when I begin with “target lead” that my initial data often nails the target, but this is the case for ‘initial data’ no matter what the methodology. Excepting, of course, formalized methodological structures which deliberately prevent viewers from getting any initial data beyond a gestalt, and then gradually super simple descriptives. My Archetype method is a ‘relax and do it’ approach with a few obviously added details and procedures, so it doesn’t have those restrictions.
I do deliberately attempt to ‘shift perspective’ for each section, because I believe it’s useful and functions as a sort of base-line, fundamental form of “self-prompting.”
I number my sessions like so:
- There is a lab book they are in, and each book has a number. Right now I have just begun book 8.
- There is a target, and they are numbered sequentially.
- There is a session on a given target, and they are numbered sequentially.
- So in my RV, if you see “8.3.1” it would mean book 8, target 3, session 1.
I think I’ll talk about some of my session work in this blog, if it’s done in the Archetype or Aspect methodologies I’ve been working on for years. Albeit barely and occasionally. I’m suddenly viewing a lot more and intend to continue that. I think I should write this stuff down somewhere eventually.
Since I do my ARV work in book 5, I’m hoping book 8 can be dedicated to Archetype and Aspect approaches so I get a more consistent viewing, more consistent style, and better look at the results.